Comic-Con: Stan Lee Abruptly Cancels Appearance

[MedicAR]

Has anyone read that stuff though? I'm not psychotic, right? Everything I've ever read on Ditko is he's angry and anti social

I would be too if I had to deal with a fraction of the entitled fans who think creators owe them the world because they bought a copy of their comic. I would have the worst reputation as a comics professional if I were one.

From what I've read about Ditko (most recently in Sean Howe's book), he was sort of a jerk even before he had any fans. Apparently there was no love loss between him and the other creators and editors at Marvel. He is, or was, a huge fan of Ayn Rand, sociopath extraordinaire, so that makes me think he really is anti-social himself. I doubt he'd have any fans if he hadn't been lucky enough to be assigned to Spider-Man, which was a great comic in the early days in spite of his participation, not because of it. Even his artwork seems a little cold and sterile to me, something akin to the way I'd describe the man himself.

 

So how much have you interacted with him? You must have interacted some, how else could you know how to describe him? How much have you read from Ayn Rand?

 

Let's say you make hamburgers and I come in and eat one of your hamburgers and I love it. I come in every chance I get to have one of your burgers. I pay my money every time, just like anyone else. Does that make it okay for me to come to your hose and demand a free burger? Is it okay that I stalk you in hopes of maybe getting a little more than everyone else? I mean you would owe it to me, right? I pay your salary, after all, I bought your burgers. How about if all of your customers did this? Don't you believe that you might get tired of it quickly? To Mr. Ditko, it is no different. He created comics and got paid. People buy them and are entertained. End of transaction. He doesn't expect more from the public and doesn't want to give more, either. You feel differently and are entitled to do so, but it is ridiculous and childish to vilify him for not living up to your expectations.

 

Comics in the 50s and 60s were a totally different animal than they are today. No one cared who wrote or drew anything. They wanted their characters every month. That's it. No one got famous or rich, it was mostly anonymous work and that appealed to Mr. Ditko. No one anticipated the way Marvel would take off, how Stan Lee would work to make fans feel included, or that fans would develop an affinity for specific creators. Mr. Ditko only carried Spider-Man for three years, with a hand in creating all of the major elements of the title, so I would say you owe him as many thanks as you do Stan Lee. You may not like him or his art but there wouldn't be Spider-Man as we know him without Mr. Ditko.

 

Simply put, Ditko believes that he and his work are separate and that liking his work is not the same as liking him. He doesn't create limited edition prints or do commissions because he prefers to tell a story, not just make pictures. Based on my dealings with him, I would say he considers himself a storyteller rather than an artist.

 

I've never interacted with Ditko, but I don't need to "interact" with someone in order to form an opinion of that person. I am entitled to form an opinion based on both my interpretation of the person's work and second-hand information.

 

I never said one word to indicate that my opinion of Ditko has anything to do with whether he interacts with his fans, so your hamburger analogy was a waste of time. (I've actually never interacted with any comic book creator. In fact, I haven't attended a convention in well over a decade.) Plenty of artists, writers, and performers shy away from interaction with fans, which is certainly their prerogative.

 

Ditko's art is a little too bleak for me, but my opinion of the man himself is based primarily upon his belief in objectivism, which ranks among the most absurd, offensive systems of philosophy I've encountered in my life--one that could only have been developed by a sociopath, and one that appeals primarily to other sociopaths (like the Koch Brothers). Few ideas have ever succeeded in nauseating me the way Ayn Rand's have. (It's not a coincidence that roughly 1% of people are sociopaths and that roughly 1% of voters are Libertarians.)

 

You are correct. You are certainly entitled to your opinions however misguided or misinformed they may be.

 

Thank you for your concern about how I spend my time. I don't have much free time as it is and I suppose I should embrace Objectivism and concern myself with my own happiness as opposed to trying to help others grasp what seems be such an alien concept or help to inform them about misconceptions that they may have. Having written and received many letters from Mr. Ditko, I have found him to be pleasant and even generous with his time. I will embrace the Objectivist idea and respect your right to be misinformed and to be happy in that state.

 

I'm not sure what is absurd or offensive about trying to be happy and respecting the rights of others in the same pursuit, but again, it is your opinion. Tragically, you have delved into politics so I am sure this thread will be locked soon.

 

[Unca Ben]

Perhaps the Mods will see Objectivism as more a philosophy than politics, and have mercy on this thread.

[Unca Ben]

P.S: I Love Ditko.

 

P.P.S: I Love Stan.

 

P.P.P.S: I Love Kirby.

 

Now I'm all out of love. think I'll listen to some Air Supply.

[Mr 9.8]

 

Ditko's art is a little too bleak for me, but my opinion of the man himself is based primarily upon his belief in objectivism, which ranks among the most absurd, offensive systems of philosophy I've encountered in my life--one that could only have been developed by a sociopath, and one that appeals primarily to other sociopaths (like the Koch Brothers). Few ideas have ever succeeded in nauseating me the way Ayn Rand's have. (It's not a coincidence that roughly 1% of people are sociopaths and that roughly 1% of voters are Libertarians.)

Seriously? Bringing politics in to this thread? And how many Libertarians have you actually met if I'm allowed to ask?

[Mark 1]

C'mon drop the political discussion.

 

Ditko is the Spidey king!

 

'Nuff said

[General Zod]

That stuff will get cleansed.

[MedicAR]

P.S: I Love Ditko.

 

P.P.S: I Love Stan.

 

P.P.P.S: I Love Kirby.

 

Now I'm all out of love. think I'll listen to some Air Supply.

 

Build up your stores because there are still Wrightson, Williamson, Feldstein, Eisner, Adams, Siegel, Shuster, Kane, Romita, Mignola, Windsor-Smith, Aparo, Infantino, Moldoff, the other Adams, Nodell, Steranko, Pérez, DeZuniga, Byrne, Claremont, the other Kane, Cockrum, Trimpe, Wein, Bolland, Moore, Miller, Crumb, and a few others…

 

 

 

[jimbo_707]

Has anyone read that stuff though? I'm not psychotic, right? Everything I've ever read on Ditko is he's angry and anti social

I would be too if I had to deal with a fraction of the entitled fans who think creators owe them the world because they bought a copy of their comic. I would have the worst reputation as a comics professional if I were one.

From what I've read about Ditko (most recently in Sean Howe's book), he was sort of a jerk even before he had any fans. Apparently there was no love loss between him and the other creators and editors at Marvel. He is, or was, a huge fan of Ayn Rand, sociopath extraordinaire, so that makes me think he really is anti-social himself. I doubt he'd have any fans if he hadn't been lucky enough to be assigned to Spider-Man, which was a great comic in the early days in spite of his participation, not because of it. Even his artwork seems a little cold and sterile to me, something akin to the way I'd describe the man himself.

 

So how much have you interacted with him? You must have interacted some, how else could you know how to describe him? How much have you read from Ayn Rand?

 

Let's say you make hamburgers and I come in and eat one of your hamburgers and I love it. I come in every chance I get to have one of your burgers. I pay my money every time, just like anyone else. Does that make it okay for me to come to your hose and demand a free burger? Is it okay that I stalk you in hopes of maybe getting a little more than everyone else? I mean you would owe it to me, right? I pay your salary, after all, I bought your burgers. How about if all of your customers did this? Don't you believe that you might get tired of it quickly? To Mr. Ditko, it is no different. He created comics and got paid. People buy them and are entertained. End of transaction. He doesn't expect more from the public and doesn't want to give more, either. You feel differently and are entitled to do so, but it is ridiculous and childish to vilify him for not living up to your expectations.

 

Comics in the 50s and 60s were a totally different animal than they are today. No one cared who wrote or drew anything. They wanted their characters every month. That's it. No one got famous or rich, it was mostly anonymous work and that appealed to Mr. Ditko. No one anticipated the way Marvel would take off, how Stan Lee would work to make fans feel included, or that fans would develop an affinity for specific creators. Mr. Ditko only carried Spider-Man for three years, with a hand in creating all of the major elements of the title, so I would say you owe him as many thanks as you do Stan Lee. You may not like him or his art but there wouldn't be Spider-Man as we know him without Mr. Ditko.

 

Simply put, Ditko believes that he and his work are separate and that liking his work is not the same as liking him. He doesn't create limited edition prints or do commissions because he prefers to tell a story, not just make pictures. Based on my dealings with him, I would say he considers himself a storyteller rather than an artist.

 

I've never interacted with Ditko, but I don't need to "interact" with someone in order to form an opinion of that person. I am entitled to form an opinion based on both my interpretation of the person's work and second-hand information.

 

I never said one word to indicate that my opinion of Ditko has anything to do with whether he interacts with his fans, so your hamburger analogy was a waste of time. (I've actually never interacted with any comic book creator. In fact, I haven't attended a convention in well over a decade.) Plenty of artists, writers, and performers shy away from interaction with fans, which is certainly their prerogative.

 

Ditko's art is a little too bleak for me, but my opinion of the man himself is based primarily upon his belief in objectivism, which ranks among the most absurd, offensive systems of philosophy I've encountered in my life--one that could only have been developed by a sociopath, and one that appeals primarily to other sociopaths (like the Koch Brothers). Few ideas have ever succeeded in nauseating me the way Ayn Rand's have. (It's not a coincidence that roughly 1% of people are sociopaths and that roughly 1% of voters are Libertarians.)

 

I'm not sure what is absurd or offensive about trying to be happy and respecting the rights of others in the same pursuit...

 

Your attempted description of objectivism is a dangerously less-than-straightforward oversimplification.

 

What's offensive about objectivism is that it is essentially an attempt at legitimizing narcissism. The focus is on the self rather than on the community, the world at large, or interpersonal relationships. (For the record, I consider myself a humanist/environmentalist.)

 

Perhaps the most absurd thing about objectivism is the fallacy that pursuing one's own happiness as a primary goal is even possible without detracting from the happiness of others. It isn't, because there are always conflicts of interest. "Respecting others' rights," as you put it, isn't enough. I'm sure it makes sense to an objectivist because a (narcissistic) objectivist, if he were being honest, could, like Richard III, declare that " . . . this word 'love,' which graybeards call divine / Be resident in men like one another / And not in me: I am myself alone." I believe, like John Donne, that "no man is an island," but objectivists would have every man be an island. There have been instances when I've sacrificed a little of my own happiness for the sake of someone else's happiness, and I don't mind doing so--not one little bit. Most normal human beings do that from time to time, and most consider it noble and admirable, but that would be beyond the comprehension of an objectivist, who would deride most people as martyrs.

 

One of the most dangerous tenets of objectivism is the promotion of laissez-faire capitalism, which has essentially destroyed the planet already. Objectivists would likely see protecting anything of no commercial value as irrational because they are completely devoid of sentimentality. Like all sociopaths, they are less than fully human in that respect. Laissez-faire capitalism has also increased the gap between the rich and the poor. Even if the material condition of the poor hasn't deteriorated as measured against itself from one decade to the next, humans are social creatures and evaluate their circumstances relative to those of others, so the gap between rich and poor is what matters.

 

Fortunately, most people do reject objectivism because it offends them at a visceral level, even if most of them couldn't articulate what is it they dislike about it.

 

Incidentally, like someone else said, objectivism is a philosophy, so we're not violating any rules against politics by discussing it. (I'll refrain from discussing Libertarians.)

[kav]

IBTL

[Warren Oates]

Whooa. Er, lighten up Francis.

 

 

 

[MedicAR]

[TheShadowKnows]

I'll be out there signing autographs for the fans but they won't be cheap.

[Mayor006]

P.S: I Love Ditko.

 

P.P.S: I Love Stan.

 

P.P.P.S: I Love Kirby.

 

Now I'm all out of love. think I'll listen to some Air Supply.

 

Build up your stores because there are still Wrightson, Williamson, Feldstein, Eisner, Adams, Siegel, Shuster, Kane, Romita, Mignola, Windsor-Smith, Aparo, Infantino, Moldoff, the other Adams, Nodell, Steranko, Pérez, DeZuniga, Byrne, Claremont, the other Kane, Cockrum, Trimpe, Wein, Bolland, Moore, Miller, Crumb, and a few others…

 

 

 

I can only afford so much SS! ( but I'm working on it)

[vaillant]

Ditko's art is a little too bleak for me, but my opinion of the man himself is based primarily upon his belief in objectivism, which ranks among the most absurd, offensive systems of philosophy I've encountered in my life--one that could only have been developed by a sociopath, and one that appeals primarily to other sociopaths (like the Koch Brothers). Few ideas have ever succeeded in nauseating me the way Ayn Rand's have. (It's not a coincidence that roughly 1% of people are sociopaths and that roughly 1% of voters are Libertarians.)

 

Well, first there is to say the atheist philosophy of Ayn Rand needs to be framed in the historical context she lived in. It was obviously limited, and from what I see what has developed into has little to do with her original thought.

Additionally, one doesn’t need to explicitly adhere to a contemporary philosophical trend, especially given how philosophy has become so little objective these days, to have Ditko‘s beliefs about his characters and his own work. Bill Watterson is even more rigid than Ditko on this, and he surely is not doing it to be unappealing to fans. I have always admired it a lot for this, although this didn’t prevent people from producing fake Calvin & Hobbes merchandise.

 

I would not use terms like "sociopath": as many other relatively modern terms they just speak of things they always existed but actually do not explain anything.

The first time I have heard it used it’s been in english, recently and on the internet.

[vaillant]

P.S: I Love Ditko.

 

P.P.S: I Love Stan.

 

P.P.P.S: I Love Kirby.

 

Now I'm all out of love. think I'll listen to some Air Supply.

 

 

(Although I love slightly less Ditko and Stan).

[Buzzetta]

Is it okay to like Romita's Spider-man more than Ditko's? While Ditko does the designs and builds the foundation, I agree with the statement that Romita's experience in Romance Books allowed him to capture the everyday life of Peter Parker in a way that Ditko never could. Taking what Marvel and Stan Lee have always said about the character, it was the everyday life of Peter Parker that was more defining to the character than Spider-man, unlike Bruce Wayne/Batman where the Batman side is more important.

[Unca Ben]

P.S: I Love Ditko.

 

P.P.S: I Love Stan.

 

P.P.P.S: I Love Kirby.

 

Now I'm all out of love. think I'll listen to some Air Supply.

 

Build up your stores because there are still Wrightson, Williamson, Feldstein, Eisner, Adams, Siegel, Shuster, Kane, Romita, Mignola, Windsor-Smith, Aparo, Infantino, Moldoff, the other Adams, Nodell, Steranko, Pérez, DeZuniga, Byrne, Claremont, the other Kane, Cockrum, Trimpe, Wein, Bolland, Moore, Miller, Crumb, and a few others…

 

 

Love 'em all

 

...and Wood, Toth, Crandall, Davis, Orlando, Williamson, Morrow, Torres, Krigstein, Craig, Severin (both of them), Kubert, Heath, Buscema, Colan, and we could go on and on (thankfully) !

Love 'em all!

[Unca Ben]

Is it okay to like Romita's Spider-man more than Ditko's? While Ditko does the designs and builds the foundation, I agree with the statement that Romita's experience in Romance Books allowed him to capture the everyday life of Peter Parker in a way that Ditko never could. Taking what Marvel and Stan Lee have always said about the character, it was the everyday life of Peter Parker that was more defining to the character than Spider-man, unlike Bruce Wayne/Batman where the Batman side is more important.

 

While I wish Ditko didn't leave after #38, yet it definitely worked out okay. Ditko was perfect for the awkward and gangly teenage years of Peter. Romita was perfect for the maturing of Peter Parker into a young adult, smoothing the facial features and physically filling him out.

 

This change was happening a bit under Ditko; after graduating high School, Ditko had Peter go clothes shopping, and instead of the blue suit, yellow vest and red tie, Peter dressed in a more "modern" style open vest and collarless shirt.

 

It was Peter Parker's personal life that made ASM special. I've said that while Kirby built universes, no one built a neighborhood like Ditko.

 

While most of Stan's books carried a supporting cast of about three ( eg: DD - Murdock, Nelson and Page; Hulk - General and Betty Ross, Major Talbot; Iron Man - Stark, Happy and Pepper; etc.) Ditko, and I believe it was mostly Ditko, designed one of the largest supporting casts for the time.

 

With Ditko, there was Peter, Aunt May, Uncle Ben, Liz, Flash, Betty, JJJ, Anna Watson, Anna's never-seen niece Mary Jane, Fredrick Foswell, Curt Conners, Ned Leeds, Harry Osbourne, Norman Osbourne and Gwen Stacy.

Even Aunt May's Doctor and Peter's teachers (both High school and college teachers were named Warren) would interweave throughout Peter's life.

 

Never had I seen a supporting cast this big, with each making their own unique contribution, and they weren't interchangeable characters.

 

I think Steve Ditko poured his soul into ASM, and his anger with Stan Lee wasn't over the Goblin / Norman thing. (That was a myth, as Ditko himself has written).

 

I believe Ditko was angered that, while Stan gave him plotting credit, Stan received the monetary compensation for writing the Amazing Spider-Man. This would go against Ditko's principles, making Stan the "moocher" in Randian terms (not mine).

This is an educated (I hope) guess, as Steve has never said publicly why he left. "Stan knows why" is the closest I've heard Ditko quoted on the subject.

[towards2112]

I quickly leafed through 12 pages of Bravo Sierra, only to still not know if

Stan has a boil on his bum or if it is something serious. Too bad the kiddies

take over the forum when the adults leave.

[Unca Ben]

I quickly leafed through 12 pages of Bravo Sierra, only to still not know if

Stan has a boil on his bum or if it is something serious. Too bad the kiddies

take over the forum when the adults leave.

 

I didn't know this thread was about Stan. I thought it was about Steve Ditko.