Steve Ditko... 1 1

[Tony D]

The covers for Charlton's CAPTAIN ATOM revival.

 

Captain Atom #78

 

Captain Atom #79

 

Captain Atom #80

 

Captain Atom #81

 

Captain Atom #82

 

Captain Atom #83

 

Captain Atom #84

[MedicAR]

The covers for Charlton's CAPTAIN ATOM revival.

 

Not to pick nits, but is it really a revival? I thought this was all first run stuff and Captain Atom started in Space Adventures.

[Tony D]

Continuing the CAPTAIN ATOM covers.

 

Captain Atom #85

 

Captain Atom #86

 

unused cover for Captain Atom #86

 

Captain Atom #87

 

Captain Atom #88

 

Captain Atom #89

 

unpublished cover for Captain Atom #90

[Aman619]

boy, I still love these covers. I wish the logo panel wasnt there though, and the art went all the way off the top.

 

 

[Tony D]

The covers for Charlton's CAPTAIN ATOM revival.

 

Not to pick nits, but is it really a revival? I thought this was all first run stuff and Captain Atom started in Space Adventures.

 

Yes, Captain Atom started in SPACE ADVENTURES #33 dated Mar. 1960. His last appearance in the original run was in SPACE ADVENTURES #42 in Oct. 1961. He next made his appearance in STRANGE SUSPENSE STORIES #'s 75, 76 and 77, which reprinted those stories from the original run. CAPTAIN ATOM #78 (which took over the numbering from STRANGE SUSPENSE STORIES) dated Dec. 1965, was the first new story featuring the character in four years, and therefore a revival.

 

Strange Suspense Stories #75

 

Strange Suspense Stories #76

 

Strange Suspense Stories #77

 

All these covers are interior panels from the stories.

[Tony D]

Here is a scan of SPACE ADVENTURES #33. It's not my copy. I haven't scanned mine yet.

 

Edited May 3, 2009 by Tony D

[binarysunrise]

Is it true Ditko once passed a stop sign and got pulled over, the cop gave him the infraction and told him: "Sign here please.." Ditko looked up and said "You 're going to have to do better than that", perplexed, the policeman just looked towards the passenger side at his wife, she shrugged her shoulders and said "sorry, no autographs....no exceptions.." and he just put an X on the signature line...

 

Anyone just send him a check made out to "Steve Ditko" and wait for the bank to send back the endorsed copy?

[LloydJBailey]

I got my first Ditko comic on ebay today =]

Just thought i'd attach a picture and contribute to my post, I know most people have probably seen it before because it's his more popular work but maybe some haven't.

[Tony D]

I got my first Ditko comic on ebay today =]

Just thought i'd attach a picture and contribute to my post, I know most people have probably seen it before because it's his more popular work but maybe some haven't.

 

Congratulations, Lloyd. I hope your collection of Ditko books continues to grow larger.

[Tony D]

Continuing the posting of my Charlton Ditko UNUSUAL TALES covers.

 

Unusual Tales # 22

 

Unusual Tales #23

 

Unusual Tales #25

 

Unusual Tales #26

 

Unusual Tales #27

 

Unusual Tales #31

[Tony D]

Here's one you don't see to often.

 

Mad Monsters #1

[AtlasFan]

Nice Books Tony D (psst... you should post these in the CHARLTON Sci-Fi thread over at the Silver forum!)

 

Do you have any OUT OF THIS WORLDs? Those had some really surreal covers.

thanks,

Bill

[AtlasFan]

Here's one you don't see to often.

 

Mad Monsters #1

 

Holy spit! I've never seen that one before! Looks like a Charlton FAMOUS MONSTERS clone. Any Ditko on the inside?

Edited May 4, 2009 by AtlasFan

[Tony D]

Here's one you don't see to often.

 

Mad Monsters #1

 

Holy spit! I've never seen that one before! Looks like a Charlton FAMOUS MONSTERS clone. Any Ditko on the inside?

 

Unfortunately, all Steve did was the cover.

[AtlasFan]

Here's one you don't see to often.

 

Mad Monsters #1

 

Holy spit! I've never seen that one before! Looks like a Charlton FAMOUS MONSTERS clone. Any Ditko on the inside?

 

Unfortunately, all Steve did was the cover.

 

Hey Tony,

I checked this issue out on Blake Bell's "Ditko Looked Up" site, and he mentions that there is a Ditko 3 pager called "K". Check out the issue again..their may be some hidden treasure in there for you!

Bill

[Tony D]

Here's one you don't see to often.

 

Mad Monsters #1

 

Holy spit! I've never seen that one before! Looks like a Charlton FAMOUS MONSTERS clone. Any Ditko on the inside?

 

Unfortunately, all Steve did was the cover.

 

Hey Tony,

I checked this issue out on Blake Bell's "Ditko Looked Up" site, and he mentions that there is a Ditko 3 pager called "K". Check out the issue again..their may be some hidden treasure in there for you!

Bill

 

Bill, you're correct! I had forgotten that Steve did a three page story for MAD Monsters #1. I hadn't looked at this book in about ten years. I usually put a sticker on the back of the snug listing any interior art contained in the book inside, but I either forgot to put one on MAD MONSTERS or it fell off.

 

I scanned the story but the magazine is square bound and I couldn't flatten it out without destoying the spine. This is the best I could do.

 

K pg.1

 

K pg.2

 

K pg.3

[AtlasFan]

Thanks for the scans. This work of Ditko is rather interesting..kind of like a small preview of the kind of material Ditko would produce if he went to work for MAD.

[MedicAR]

Brace yourselves.....Steve Ditko can be a wordy guy......find a comfy chair.....

 

A summary of the Baltimore Cup-O-Joe Panel brought this up, "Asked point blank by a fan if things in the Marvel Universe will ever go back to normal after being “screwed up” by House of M and Civil War, Quesada said, “These toys are meant to be broken. If we just told stories that kept the status quo, nobody would be in this room, and I’d be out of a job. They’re mean to be thrown against a wall, smashed together, and built back up again.”

 

What follows is an excerpt from Steve Ditko's "Toyland" which can be read in its entirety here.

 

First, let’s examine and understand a necessary and fundamental distinction: The natural (disease, germs, etc.) and the man/mind made (science, medicine, cars, computers, etc.).

 

Everything man/mind made serves some purpose of being useful, good, practical or mistaken, useless, bad.

 

And almost everything man/mind made can be used to serve some purpose that it was not originally, purposefully made for: Airplanes are made, used, for air transportation, a human good, a value for living. But they were used as a deliberate terrorist weapon for the destruction of a life-serving, economic creation and for the deaths of innocent lives.

 

Every mind can identify the authority and the license involved in that destructive action.

 

And words can be and are used for all kinds of negative purposes, for excuses, lying, rationalizing, propaganda, ideologies, pseudo-sciences, prestige, etc.

 

With that, let’s examine that Joe Quesada sentence and some key words in the full context of comic book characters, stories, editing and publishing.

 

“These toys are meant to be broken”, “smashed together” and “status quo”.

 

“Broken” and “smashed” are not creative concepts but aggressive and destructive.

 

Next, there are two definitions of a toy: (1) “…a thing of little importance; trifle” and (2) “a plaything especially for children.”

 

So the purpose of a toy can be useless, negative or useful, positive depending on the particular context and on the toy’s purpose, function, of why it was made and what the end or goal it serves.

 

So a super hero comic book, a super hero, can be seen, held, as a “toy”, a “trifle”, of little use, value, to human life, so only fit to be “smashed”, “broken”.

 

Or the comic book, the “hero”, can be seen, held, as important, useful, a real value for man/mind and life.

 

It all depends on the evaluating, judging mind, the degree of rationality, reasoning, and what is believed, accepted, as a valid standard of value–the intrinsic, subjective or objective– that is used, operating.

 

A toy as a plaything for a child can be for a purpose of activating, stimulating, broadening his mind toward new experiences, discoveries, opportunities, benefits, possibilities, etc.

 

A toy doll can give a young girl all kinds of new experiences, of playing at being a friend, a sister or even a parent, etc.

 

A toy game for a young boy can be used to play with learning various skills, being adventurous, competitive, competent, even suggesting a future career.

 

A further elaboration on toys is with the Montessori School for young children (3-6 yrs.). The Montessori teaching method is teaching with toys. A young mind implicitly learns identity–A is A, causality, if/then, etc.– in having to fit round, square or odd-shaped objects into their appropriate holes on a board.

 

Toy building blocks teach a mind that there must first be a solid base, a foundation, to build, erect, a firm block structure (pyramid, etc.). There is an implied hierarchy, ranking, for the whole to stand, exist.

 

What is learned implicitly is that contradictions of identity, A is A, cannot lead to success in the real world.

 

It is the still emotionally-driven mind that gets frustrated and wants to “smash” the “toy”, the learning device, when it can’t get the material, the identities, to act any way it emotionally wants: A square piece in a round hole, etc.

 

The child’s mind has to identify, understand, learn to train the beginning of an ordered mind in the actual, successful doing. A pleasurable, rewarding experience.

 

A child’s mind learns that if he wants a certain effect–standing blocks, etc.–his mind has to obey the non-contradictory, the facts, identities of reality.

 

In contrast, the Summerhill School for young children, like progressive education, rejects reality, i.e. identity, reason, objectivity, for subjectivism and a disordered mind.

 

The child is not to learn how to think, not to develop cognitive, intellectual efficacy, not to be an independent thinker, not to be an individual.

 

The child is taught to have a community, group, mind, to have collective opinions as to true knowledge on issues such as the environment (“Stop killing, murdering, trees”), scientific and ethical issues and practices, to have collective opinions on social issues (the “poor”, the “needy”, others less fortunate, etc.) and all involving a child’s mind needing reliable knowledge, understanding, of psychology, morality, politics, etc., a whole philosophy.

 

The progressive child is taught, encouraged, to act on whim, on emotions, for gratifications, emotionally to “smash” what has a specific identity for no reason other than that group mind can’t competently deal with objective facts, identities.

 

Facts, truths, the real, are to be “smashed”, “broken”, as the workable best and the rational good, as the destroyed successful Twin Towers business offices and destroyed productive workers lives are to be replaced with justifying fantasy and illusions that the destroyed towers can be rebuilt better than before and that the murdered human individuals don’t really matter as, in justice, they should.

 

Those valued irreplaceable identities had to be “smashed”, “broken”, for no other reason than to express feelings of being unfit for the real world, expressed by turning valuable entities, “toys”, into pieces, into rubble, into corpses, into anti-authentic identities, all to “create” a pseudo self-esteem with irrational beliefs and actions.

 

The Progressives‘, all anti-objective education’s, goal is to teach, train, the child’s mind the need to “smash” particularly the status quo like property rights, i.e. the right to life, that the abstract community “mind”, meaning some authority with a license, decides what is to be “smashed”, to be “broken”, turned into a non-, an anti-identity for some common good.

 

But what can one build from anything smashed?

 

The NYC Twin Towers were “smashed” into rubble. What was built is a rubble dump, graveyard material.

 

All the identities were “smashed” for no greater purpose than to destroy that which others had created and to kill innocent, productive human beings, all that to create a pseudo-self-esteem, an illusion of righteous power.

 

That kind of “smashed together” destroying is always in the name of some greater, higher purpose or good, be it religious, social, humanitarian, environmental or artistic.

 

“…stories that kept the status quo…”

 

The dictionary definition of status quo: “[L., lit., the state in which] the existing state of affairs (at any specific time), or existing condition {of anything specified): also ”.

 

So “status quo” means something constant, not changing like a law, a marriage, an existing comic book company or the latest on-going editor, etc.

 

Does keeping the “status quo” in Marvel Comics stories mean doing the same story idea over and over again and again–the “hero” defeats the villain, the “hero” keeps having personal problems, etc.?

 

But there never was any real “status quo” in Marvel stories or Marvel would just keep continually repeating, reprinting, the first original comic titles with no further, different issues made, published.

 

If there is to be no “status quo” then all the characters, their names, relationships, “toys”, have to also be “broken”, “smashed together” with all completely new “toys” with every issue.

 

And if no “status quo”, then stop all reprinting.

 

Stop making “status quo”, “hero” statues, “toys”.

 

Smash merchandising.

 

Smash Marvel Comics (which is actually being done, with slow rot, without being realized).

 

So a super “hero” comic book, a story, is held as a “toy” with no real value, a “trifle” and of no real worth, importance, for a mind to see, buy, read, and must be “smashed” into some non-identity rubble.

 

Let’s compare comic book stories with more serious novels. Both deal with handling characters lives, choices, actions and with good or bad results, endings.

 

Both forms give buyers/readers a fairly large menu of different types, degrees, of men/women characters, goals, why they choose to act the way they do, what for, and how they will or must end up as they do. It’s: If this identity, then this must follow and end as it does.

 

In all stories, the reader/viewer can decide which characters he likes/dislikes, admires, would like to be like, to avoid, to fear, or envy, etc. He has choices.

 

If there are “smashed” identities of contradictory identifications, then everyone becomes a non-entity, indefinable by any valid standard.

 

The black-and-white standard has already been agreed upon by the majority as “smashed” into a grey rubble of more or less grey, into anti-heroes and non-entities, down to zeroes, a nothing, so useless.

 

The much maligned B-westerns showed a clearly defined moral code, a standard. Those westerns identified a range from good to degrees of wrong, to the bad/evil.

 

The cowboy in the “white hat” (good), the hero, fights fair, helps people in distress, defends the law, fights rustlers, lawbreakers, etc. He acts as an agent of justice.

 

The cowboy in the “black hat” (the bad), the villain, fights unfairly, cheats, stabs, shoots people in the back, steals property, robs banks, rustles cattle, etc. He acts as an agent of the bad.

 

The cowboy in the “grey hat” (a sneak), tips off the villains about gold shipments, spies on the sheriff, on honest people with wealth, spreads lies, is an agitator, etc. He is an agent of compromise and corruption.

 

The honest but uncertain sheriff doesn’t have the information, knowledge, about the newcomer hero, so he’s suspicious, tending to believe the lies of the local black and grey hats who are posing as helpful and honest townspeople. He is an agent still collecting, weighing, actions, evidence, for a legal judgment.

 

The confused heroine is also not trusting the hero because of the uncertainty of the sheriff and the lies from the black and grey hats. She is an agent of emotional and moral uncertainty.

 

Later, the anti-hero western’s realism muddied the clear identities into greyness: “We’re all alike,” “Nobody is better than anyone else.”

 

Black, grey, white western identities were “smashed” and the new “status quo” offered a character menu of hash or a stew with no clear identities to recognize, know and savor.

 

One who reads Agatha Christie’s Miss Marple will find her saying “I don’t like bad people who do bad things,” and “It’s a wicked act and the wicked should not go unpunished.”

 

There is the goal of her Hercules Poirot: “The truth, always the truth,” and his Spanish proverb: “God says take what you want, then pay the price.”

 

Far too many today are the takers unwilling to pay any price.

 

They want mercy not justice. They do not want to be treated as they deserve.

 

They want to be treated better than they deserve.

 

So what kind of man-/mind-made offerings have the most value, worth, the clearest or the muddiest, for the best, the benevolent, or the worst, the malevolent kind of human mind?

 

The only real choice is: It‘s either/or.

 

Conclusion

 

So what is ignored/evaded is that there is a long, ongoing “status quo” in Marvel Comics company’s very existence and publishing that needs to be “broken”, “smashed together”.

 

There are periodic operational changes in the company’s “status quo” with different editors. But while these new editors create different personal styles, they all maintain the same editorial “status quo”, that same anti-hero premise.

 

That anti-hero premise was initiated by a prior authority and is continually licensed to the new, changing, “status quo” editors.

 

Quesada himself is only the latest “status quo” mind, a different editorial body change with the same “status quo” editorial mind, the same “license” from the same original anti-hero “authority”.

 

That same ongoing “license” is to “smash”, create “broken” “toys”, i.e. various negative, destructive ideas, art, in a super hero story.

 

Every new “status quo” editor has the “license” and the incentive to “smash” whatever aspect of a hero that particular editor’s whim finds gratifying.

 

What has to be ultimately “broken”, “smashed” into a non-identity, is the original idea not of a valid comic book super hero but the idea that man is a rational animal, that a hero is any person admired for his qualities or achievements and regarded as an ideal or model, that a hero is a moral agent of justice embodying A is A.

 

That idea of an authentic hero is the ever remaining, indestructible “status quo”.

 

That ideal, that “status quo”, is always rejected by all “licensed” editors continually trying to “smash” some positive man/mind made values (“toys”) and continually unable to touch the reality of man and a hero.

 

So which identities, “status quo”, remain at Marvel? One is the ongoing identifying label of “super hero”. The “authority”, “licensers”, desired, preferred label is anti-hero with all its implications and manifestations.

 

The Marvel editorial mind could really try to “smash” the Law of Identity–A is A–of man as a hero, by smashing not the second, merely conventional hero label–Spider-Man–but what some editors tried to “smash” with the new Spider-Man costume: his visual identity, with a different, anti-Spider-Man costume, but the original costume, its identity, its reality, the original creation, is the original creation, the visual, existing Spider-Man, and that “status quo” identity stymies them if Spider-Man is Spider-Man.

 

They need that original creation because they still want, need, to keep feeding off the two labels: super hero, Spider-Man, and my costume design, off the “toy” believed, held, as a “trifle”.

 

So as much as the “status quo” Marvel editorial mentalities act to destroy, want to have them “smashed” to create “broken” pieces, those identities continue to mock, ridicule, their motive and their anti-hero, anti-mind behavior.

 

Beyond Quesada’s explicit confession to create “smashed”, “broken” “toys”, his confession clearly reveals, exposes, the source, the actual origin and the one who first assumed the authority, the power, and who first initiated, practiced, the idea that a hero is a “toy” to be “smashed”, “broken”, as an ongoing editorial anti-hero policy and duty.

 

That original source authorized the perpetual “licensing“, the sanctioning, of the nihilist principle of envy. That authority sanctioned in thought, action, goal and end to “smash”, destroy, the real identities of a rational man/mind and the just hero (toy”, “status quo”).

 

That authority sanctioned envy, the hatred of the good, the just, pro-life serving, because it is the good.

 

That authority, in rejecting the idea of a valid comic book hero, started undercutting, deforming, the hero, contradicting the hero’s identity, greying him so that one is unable to know what is the right, good, and what it means to be an agent of justice.

 

At that time in the 1960s, the overwhelming number of people in the comic industry (fans included) believed that a comic book character, especially a costumed character, was a hero fighting criminals and villains. There was the implicit black/white, villain/hero standard.

 

That authority started by showing it is permissible to deface a “toy”, a hero, to esthetically start to spoil, introduce rot into, a hero’s stature, identity, so soon no one will be able to know or to care what is objectively right or good or heroic.

 

The degree of tampering, undercutting, was not the true goal but that of those true heroic qualities, values, identities, of a hero as an agent of justice. Those identities were to “smashed”, “broken”, for all time.

 

This was not just a mistaken, free will choice. The freedom to undercut, deform, is a license, an ongoing editorial operating principle. It is a pseudo-creation, a higher “heroic” ideal and is a deliberate fraud, fake, an anti-hero as the true heroic, just ideal.

 

That original authority violated the Law of the Excluded Middle: It‘s either/or. Either a character named a hero (A) is a hero or that character named a hero is not a hero (not A).

 

There is no middle ground.

 

The deliberate introduction of some middle ground element, identity, is a violation, contradiction.

 

It is like deliberately introducing, accepting, spoilage (rot) into healthy food, introducing, accepting, intellectual spoilage (fallacies, lies, etc.) into healthy minds; introducing, accepting, moral spoilage (emotionalism) into healthy, ethical behavior; introducing, accepting, physical spoilage (germs as daily vitamins) into a healthy body.

 

That original authority started the downward slide on the negative, anti-, slippery slope by claiming the anti-, the flawed “hero”, is the “true”, “just” “hero” by the introduction and sanctioning of all kinds of spoilage (flaws, neurotic behavior, etc.).

 

With an authority, a licensing and sanctioning, the downward slide had to continue with increasingly greater spoilage and rot (the alcoholic Iron Man) to a continuing sliding downward to the level of hero stories, heroes, as “toys” to be “smashed”, “broken”, to where we now have some Marvel covers showing their super heroes in stages of rot, decay, the biological form of “smashed”, “broken”.

 

As an aside, other comic company editors, writers, have taken the authority, license, to kill some heroes. All companies do kill some supporting characters more for a shock gimmick, confessing their incompetence at achieving a needed, ongoing, dramatic story line. At DC, Speedy, the Green Arrow’s kid partner, became a drug addict and there was the death of Superman and his “humanizing” so to be no better at handling his personal problems, life, than people in therapy.

 

As with the press mentality and its subjective floating abstractions of “the public” and the “right to know”, the Marvel editorial mind operates with its subjective, floating abstractions “super” and “hero”, neither “super” nor “hero” in any true correspondence to the correct intellectual, moral action.

 

The damage done to the authentic concepts of “the public” and “the right to know” and “hero” is objectively real and unjust damage.

 

And damage is damage.

 

That which is “smashed” is “smashed” and that which is rotten is rotten.

 

But there are things, identities, in fact, truth, justice, that will remain untouchable, inviolate, indestructible, not to be smashed: A is A and justice of the earned and the deserved as “status quos”, unchanging, enduring and ever inspiring.

 

If no A is A, no real identity and nothing is or can be what it is, then every word Joe Quesada said is not the word he said.

 

If a word cannot have a “status quo”, a specific, ongoing, conceptual meaning, identity, then there can be no real communication because then even identities such as Marvel Comics cannot be Marvel Comics.

 

But either Marvel Comics is Marvel Comics or Marvel Comics is not Marvel Comics.

 

Which do you believe?

 

One cannot have it both ways at the same time and in the same respect.

 

It’s either (A is A) or (A is not A).

 

And one has to accept the consequences of one’s choice.

 

Either a super hero is a super hero, having all the legitimate qualities of a super hero, or the super hero is not a super hero and does not have the valid super hero qualities, identity, and therefore is a deliberate fraud, fake and a lie.

 

There must be a necessary “status quo” with ongoing identities.

 

Either Marvel Comics is Marvel Comics, a Marvel editor is a Marvel editor, and both are absolutely known, understood and can be continually, truthfully communicated or words, identities (Marvel, Marvel editor) must only be words as “toys”, to be continually, eternally “smashed”, “broken”, and then there must only be endless conversing in a “smashed”, “broken” alphabet, in useless, meaningless sound waves.

 

It’s either/or, A or not A, or the famous “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.”

 

There’s a long, historical, ongoing war against the rational mind, reason, against an objective reality, with all kinds, forms, of protesters, “smashers”: religious, nominalist, ideologues, the politically correct, ethnicities, subjectivists, pragmatist, etc. All the anti-minds using all kinds of authentic concepts such as “the public” and “the right to know”, “reason”, “hero”, etc., to destroy the rational mind/reason and objective identification, understanding, and communication and actions such as by using planes to destroy property and human lives.

 

A mind must accept, use, A is A even in the very attempt to reject, “smash”, identity.

 

Everyone who has read this far has accepted A is A to some degree. But not everyone will choose to accept what has been written as convincing or even important. Many will not be willing to continue to think about the issues or care to present their own case or be willing to face up to the implications or accept any valid conclusions. The material will be discarded like the latest newspaper reports on problems, issues, etc., the way most problems are dismissed, left to others. There will continue to be a stagnant, undefined, unsettling, uncomfortable status quo.

 

And the unvoiced thought: “Why doesn’t someone else make everything right?”

 

The anti-identity mind contains the mental “broken”, “smashed” identities of a self-“authorizing”, a self-“licensing”, a self-smashing of the rational, objective potentials in reality and in that mind.

 

It’s a free will choice of self-negation.

 

One should accept the anti-minded for what it is, the anti-life. That anti-premise can only offer and deliver piles, forms, of “smashed”, “broken” authentic potentials and actualities in the continuing slide down the slippery slope of anti-reality.

 

It’s a choice every mind has to continue to make and it will get the results it deserves, not in the pseudo-results of prestige, popularity, status, etc., but in justice, the truly, honestly earned and deserved.

 

Reality is the ultimate authority and its “license” of justice, in treating everyone objectively, is not in the immediate “public history” of losses (jobs, opportunities, etc.) or gains (prestige, money, etc.) but in real history’s record where a man/mind/action has truly earned and deserved his mark or his stain.

 

[Tony D]

What is reality? Reality is based on perception. Perception is not truth.

 

If you have ever seen the film Rashomon, the same incident is shown from the viewpoint of several different characters in the film. Which viewpoint, if any, is the truth?

 

Who ascertains what the "truth" is? Is it a jury of your peers, in the case of a trial? How many rape case convictions have been overturned on appeal because of DNA analysis available today which was not available when the original cases were tried?

 

How many positive identifications by witnesses have been shown to be in error?

 

Facts which were known to be "true" in the past are no longer "true" in the present. Even scientific facts can change. Does anyone today believe the earth is the center of the universe? A doesn't always stay A.

 

The best an individual can do, is to have a set of "beliefs."

 

The men who flew two planes into the Twin Towers had a set of "beliefs." I don't agree with those "beliefs" but in their minds, they were righteous. In my opinion, and the opinions of millions in this country, they were terrorists. In the opinion of millions around the world, they were martyrs for Islam who should be revered. The only truth is two planes were flown into the Twin Towers, thousands died and millions were affected.

 

History is written by the winners. It is not objective. It is subjective.

 

Fictional stories using super heroes don't contain "truth." They illustrate a point of view. They can entertain you, bore you or leave you indifferent. They can be built up using the"facts" as presented by the writer and artist, in a logical manner. They use these "facts" to present the "truth" of the story but there is no immutable truth about the characters that can not be changed by the next writer and artist to delineate their super hero tales.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AtlasFan]

Ditko should stick to drawing...