sfcityduck

This is the Ditko rhetoric that causes me to cringe in embarrassment for his memory. He's pissed that Stan wrote in a letter to a FAN MAGAZINE that Dr. Strange "Twas Steve's idea" instead of "It was Steve's idea"!?! What the ....? Did he never read Stan's public prose? "Twas," "lo and behold," and "sayeth" are Stan's style, not an attempt to mock Ditko. It's a crazy analysis. But, Ditko reveals why he thinks that way when he states: "Why not the clear, honest, objective:" The key is Steve's italicized "objective." This comment betrays that Steve's immersion in objectivism had tainted his perceptions. He saw insults and ridicule where no one else would.

Ditko is, of course, correct that he and Stan both deserve some credit. How you split it is debating the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin. And I'd admit that Stan was self-glorifying, indeed that was the persona that helped make Marvel special. But, he also over glorified his colleagues (e.g. Jake "King" Kirby) in his quest to portray Marvel as the greatest comic publisher in the world. As to whether Jack and Steve were also prone to self-promote at the expense of others - Steve was not. It was not in his genes. And if he'd never have met Stan, his reputation would be much much much poorer, because he too benefited from Stan's hype. In contrast, for whatever reasons, Jack WAS known to overclaim credit at the expense of others - the example of Ditko's Spider-man being an obvious exhibit. As I have repeatedly said, this is not the black or white situation that Ditko paints it to be. We are dealing with sinners, not saints, men with faulty memories, agendas, and, yes, axes to grind. And that includes Ditko, as his own writings with their over the top critique of Stan readily demonstrate.

Part of Ditko setting the record straight was lambasting Jack for taking credit for creating Spider-man. That is discussed in Ditko's articles posted throughout this thread. I also thought that was an ironic juxaposition with Chuck's thread over on the SA boards that also re-published attacks on Stan:

And the opinions you've posted by Ditko repeatedly include his opinion about Jack taking credit for creating Spider-man, not just his opinion's about Stan taking credit. That's why Jack comes up.

Thanks for posting this article, Chuck. Ditko's criticism of Kirby for taking credit for Spider-man is interesting (and better written).

As a writer, Ditko would have benefited from watching "Conjunction, Conjunction ..." He also would have benefitted from studying Ayn Rand a little bit more. Her philosophy is not one prone to encouraging truth telling. Rand thought the purpose of one's life should be the pursuit of one's own happiness and that it was immoral to act against one's self-interest. But isn't this a philosophy which condones liars for lying to promote themselves? Not a good philosophy for a witness to have or the right soapbox to stand on for criticising folks for lying.

I don't think that any of your statements are fair. As I stated up thread, I believe that either/or positions are rarely right. So I'm very open to the notion that Lee, Kirby, and Ditko all have elements of truth in their stories. While "the truth is the truth," the hard part is figuring out what that truth is. And here, the debate is about how and what Stan and Jack and Steve respectively accomplished and who, if anyone, was wronged along the way. And that debate includes may "facts" reasonably in dispute. Chuck does not appear to agree. He seems to think Ditko is an unimpeachable source (except when he mocks or lambasts Kirby). You seem like you may tend towards Chuck's camp. Me? I think we'd all be better off going into a search for "truth" without preconceptions which impair our ability to see it.

i do not think it is possible to discuss Ditkos later works or writing without referencing his political views. He was an odd guy.

What's the evidence for this assertion. You have already posted at least four critical comments by Ditko where he takes to task the notion that Kirby created Spider-man, and the story of Ditko's mocking of Kirby's costume design of Spider-man is quite well known. While I won't dispute that Ditko was much more angry with Lee for overclaiming credit for the creation of Spider-man, his ire towards Kirby shines through and I seem to recall other statements.

The Classics wrack was higher than some sold at Hakes and lower than others. The others definitely seemed cheap to me.

Three observations: (1) I'm finding this thread by Chuck Gower more than a bit ironic. Ditko took issue with Kirby for claiming credit for creating Spider-man. Yet, over on GA, Gower has put a thread accusing Stan Lee of stealing credit for Kirby's ideas. Probably, the right view is to realize that these guys all had their issues and none were perfect. No need to have derangement syndrome about any of them. Because ... (2) there are always more than two sides to a story. if you are true academic (and Gower has claimed he's some sort of historian), you realize that the truth is usually not an either/or. It's shades of gray. And when it comes to who is the "creator" of a corporate product that is worked on by writers, pencillers, inkers, and colorists, picking a single person is almost always the wrong idea. Especially, when the process of creating a comic character is often the result of a many issues of trial and error and character evolution. Which is why (3) the sum in DC/Marvel comics is usually better than the parts. Focusing on the ravings of a fairly bitter and wacko creator who was obsessed with Ayn Rand is probably not the best methodology for trying to find truth. Real historians don't try to fit the evidence to their desired conclusions, they follow where the evidence leads them.

Prince Valiant's "demon" sequence basically created the look and premise ("criminals are a cowardly lot ...") for Batman (and, of course, Kirby's Demon which was a wholesale homage/copy of Foster's character):

Tabletop Classics rack sold for $345. Early 50s DC spinner was a steal at $400. Late 60s DC three-wide rack topper was another steal at $175 (kicking myself for missing that).

But the best deal of all might have been this incredibly cool 1960s DC rack (forgive the venture into the SA):

And someone got a great deal on this early 50s rack. About twice as much as I paid for mine, but half as much as the lowest price I'd sell mine for:

Strong result on ebay for this table top rack:

JOHN ROMITA: I was present at at least two plotting sessions of John — Jack and Stan Lee. They were the same as my plotting sessions and the same as Gene Colan’s and Herb Trimpe’s and John Buscema. John Buscema actually did his plotting by phone, because he lived two hours away from the city. But anybody else who went in, Colan would come in, Jack Kirby would come in, I was at the office, we would plot in Stan’s office, and with Stan and Jack, most of the time — some of the times Jack would -Stan would drive both of us home on a Friday night or whatever night he was in plotting. They would finish or almost finish and then Stan would say, “come on, I will drive you guys home.” He would drop me off first and then he would take Jack, who lived about twenty minutes past me in the same general area of Long Island. So I was in the back seat of Stan’s Cadillac on two occasions that I remember distinctly, maybe more, where they were continuing what they had not finished in the office, continued plotting. I remember one particular Fantastic Four plot about the birth of the son of the two major characters in the Fantastic Four. Mr. Fantastic and The Invisible Girl were having a baby and it was a boy and they were discussing whether the boy would be gifted, a mutant like they were and gifted with powers and talents, or whether he would be a normal boy, and I remember the reference — I even referred to them and said it’s like the Munsters. There was — in the Munsters television show they were all bizarre mutated people except for the little boy who was raised — or there was a girl. I think there was a girl. She was the only normal person. So I said you could make the kid a normal guy in a family of mutants. And then they said they considered that, and then said, “well, I don’t know” — and I was thinking to myself, wow, wouldn’t it be great if they had him and you never know if the kid has powers and slowly but surely he would exhibit — for instance, he would levitate a glass or something. And so I am thinking all these things while they are talking and I remember them talking. One guy would make a suggestion, Jack would say, “that’s not a bad idea, but what if we did it this way,” and then Stan would say, “okay, but only if we did it that way” and “only if we did it this way.” They were both talking different plots and it’s -and the reason I know it is because when Stan and I would plot, I foolishly did it from memory. I never recorded it. Gene Colan was his setting, I would do everything he would ask for, but I had to do the nuts and bolts of the story. When it comes to characters, he would ask me “give me a character called The Shocker.” I would create — he would tell me the — he has the powers to shock people with electric bolts from his wrists. So he shocks people. Q: Stan would tell you that? JOHN ROMITA: Yeah, he would say that’s what The Shocker is. So I would create a costume for it. I didn’t create the name. I didn’t create anything else. I didn’t create the powers. I just created the costume. I put him in a quilted outfit, believe it or not. I thought it was going to be laughed at. Stan accepted. He was quilted so he could absorb his own shocks. The next time it would be The Rhino. He is a man in a rhino skin. He could drive himself through a wall. Just butt head right through a wall. I just did a guy in a rhino skin with his face showing through the open mouth of the rhino. Brilliant. Stan accepted it. And then he would take the character and make him valid. He would make him valid by his behavior, by his dialogue, by his — the results of what he does, the mayhem he caused, and he would give the guy a personality. That’s all it was.

Didn't Jack rather imfamously take credit for Spiderman also?

That is what I mean by "keys aren't what they used to be." The term has been devalued to meaningless.

"There are no ages, only decades," said Yoda. The "ages," as originated and defined by the fathers of modern comic fandom, were specific to superhero comics (and really DC superhero comic books at that). And the dirty little secret of comic collecting is that they never made much sense beyond DC comics. But, dealers liked the cache of the term "Golden Age," and later "Silver Age," and still later "Bronze Age" and "Platinum Age" and "Copper Age," and so the terms had commercial appeal. But, now, dealers are more content to talk about comics in terms of genre and other factors which do not hinge upon the "ages." The "ages" are dying terms. We've run out of precious metals. And the [Insert precious metal here] Age is not longer as big a selling point as "PCH," "GGA," "key," numerous artist names, etc. Long live the Ages, the Ages are dead! Especially, if the best anyone can come up with that the dumb names on this thread. Get off of my lawn!

"Keys" aren't what they used to be.

I like Flessel a lot, but he's no O'Mealia. I'll take Adventure 41 over Adventure 27 any day: And O'Mealia's Action covers are all classics: Plus, his Detective covers are not at all shabby:

Wow, this thread is back from the dead! I didn't even know I'd posted on it until I'd been re-reading for a while. If we're talking the war years covers, then I have to agree that Schomburg is the king. He was at his peak for Timely. And his covers blow S&Ks output of the same time out of the water. Prior to WWII, I think Everett has some great covers for Centaur (Sand Hogs is a favorite) and he deserves some consideration, but I admit that was not the high point of his technical expertise. LB Cole is also, for me, a guy who high his high point after WWII. The best technician of the pre-war years was, in my mind, Leo O'Mealia. It would take Frazetta and Williamson to knock Leo off his perch for king of the realistic technically beautiful covers. S&K, and even Schomburg were more cartoony in style, and so was Everett back then.

Yep. It's a re-run of the first appearance.

Why? They refer to two different concepts. I think anyone buying a slabbed comic book is sophisticated enough to understand what a second printing is.