Steve Ditko, R.I.P.

It was announced a few days ago that Steve Ditko passed away recently at age 90. It should probably be obvious that I was a big fan of his work, from the beginning to the (current) end (with hopefully quite a bit of posthumous releases still to come) and you can look through the archives of the other weblog for looks at quite a few facets of his career, including over 200 complete stories from the 1950s (every non-Marvel story he did in the 1950s, except those reprinted in recent Snyder/Ditko publications).

You can find all sorts of biographical information all over the place right now about Ditko, some of it even partially accurate. The important thing is the published work, which in Ditko's case comes out to over 15,000 pages over 65 years of being published. Almost all of those pages he pencilled (about 300 pages he just inked, mostly over Jack Kirby in the 1960s), the majority of them he inked and a large percentage he wrote or co-wrote, including most of the best of those 15,000+ pages. A few thousand he even lettered.

My own journey with Ditko begins around 40 years ago, when he had already been working professionally for a quarter century. While I may have seen his work before that, the first clear memory I have is the 1978 Pocket Book DOCTOR STRANGE, MASTER OF THE MYSTIC ARTS which reprinted the first 18 stories of Ditko's creation from 1963 to 1965. Despite the reduced size which makes the book hard for me to read now, it was a favourite of mine at age 8, with endlessly imaginative characters and settings all in just 5 to 10 pages per chapter. It would be a few years before I found out that the back half of Ditko's run on his creation was even better the front.

I'd encounter Ditko's work a few times in the next few years, mostly on stories he just pencilled, including a few short stories in DC's mystery/sci-fi anthology titles and the one year run he did on Starman with Paul Levitz in ADVENTURE COMICS. That was a particular favourite, and somewhere along the line it must have clicked that this was the same guy who did those Doctor Strange stories I loved so much.

Somewhere in there I also somehow got a copy of  E-MAN #4 from Charlton in 1974, which features an uncredited back-up story featuring an enigmatic character named Killjoy, which to this day is one of my favourite comic book stories ever. I'm not sure when I finally put the Ditko name to that story.

In the early 1980s, I began to find out more about comic book history, and reprints and back issues became more available, so I became aware that this Ditko guy whose work I'd enjoyed in various scattered places was actually somewhat of a big deal, having actually created not only Doctor Strange, but also the even more successful Spider-Man. I got some reprints of his Spider-Man stories and liked those a lot more than any of the new Spider-Man comics I read.

I mostly stopped buying comics in the mid-1980s as newsstand selection dried up, but kept reading the ones I had, so when I got back into buying comics around 1988 those early exposures to Ditko that I had read and re-read were definitely something I was ready to explore more. I found out as much as I could about his work, and over the next few years read more of his Spider-Man and Doctor Strange work, plus found other work like his Creeper, Shade and The Hawk and The Dove, plus reprints of his early sci-fi/fantasy short story work for Charlton and Marvel.

And then somehow I got lucky enough to get the now hard-to-find two volumes of THE DITKO COLLECTION that Robin Snyder edited in 1985 and 1986. These collect most of the black and white independent creator-owned work that Ditko created from 1966 to 1976, originally published through various fanzines and small-press outlets. This was quite a revelation, as just about everything I'd seen by Ditko before was filtered through writers, co-writers, editors and (often) inkers. While his imagination and storytelling couldn't help but come through even with all those filters, that only barely prepares you for the pure experience of stories where Ditko actually expresses his philosophical opinion (most notably in the Mr. A. stories in those collections, but also Avenging World and the rest) using all the skills he displayed on his mainstream work.

Make no mistake, I liked Ditko's work before I read those two books, and if asked would probably have described myself as a Ditko fan, but it was only after reading them that I think I truly appreciated his work. After that it was really no return, as I would make an effort to get any Ditko I could lay my hands on. Along the way I discovered great works like Static, The Mocker and Laszlo's Hammer, a second Killjoy story from the 1970s (both reprinted in superior black and white in THE DITKO PACKAGE), plus a seemingly endless supply of minor delights in this mainstream work like his Charlton and Marvel short stories, which often have unexpected storytelling flourishes. It's been great to see him active in the last decade (with co-publisher Robin Snyder) with not only over a thousand pages of new comics (with characters including Miss Eerie, The Madman and more Mr. A.) but also reprints of many of his long out-of-print classic independent comics and dozens of essays on various topics. I was glad I could play some small part in publicising those publishing efforts.

So, tip of the hat to S. Ditko, thanks for the last 40 years of interesting, entertaining and often enlightening reading, which I look forward to continuing to read for the next 40 years.

THE ART OF DITKO

THE ART OF DITKO is a large 208-page hardcover published by IDW a few months ago.  The bulk of the book is a reprint of 27 ½ short genre stories that Steve Ditko drew for Charlton comics in various stints with the company between 1954 and 1976.  All of the stories are reproduced in full colour with the printed comics as the source.  Most of the scripts are uncredited, except for one by Nick Cuti. Not mentioned in the book,  but Steve Skeates has previously verified that he wrote one of them, and recently Bhob Stewart has written that he and Russ Jones wrote one of the later ones.  Most of the others were probably written by Joe Gill.

In addition to the stories, there are 10 covers from Charlton reprinted.  The rest of Ditko's career is represented by the reproduction of a dozen pages of original artwork, which includes examples of the Marvel super-heroes, the short "Atlas" fantasy/sci-fi stories that preceded them, two pages from Ditko's brief period drawing for Warren's black and white magazines, a Mr. A page and a few others.  There are also a few short essays. Detailed list of the contents and sources over here.

Overall, I'd say this book is an inferior presentation of some superior material.  I didn't go into the book with the highest of expectations.  I already knew about one major issue, page 3 of this story being missing, replaced with page 3 of this story, which oddly isn't even otherwise included in the book (and why I said it has "27 ½" stories above).  Obviously production mistakes happen to the best of publishers, but that one is pretty sloppy.  I had some other issues going in as well based on what I heard about the book.  Even with those expectations lowered, I found the book to be disappointing.

But before we get to those, I will say that the strength of Ditko's art (and in a few cases the quality of the mostly uncredited writing) probably still makes the book just barely worth picking up, thanks to its relatively low cover price and the generous discount you'd probably buy it at. This book includes about 5% of Ditko's work that would qualify for inclusion (non-super-hero short story work for Charlton), and while it's not the top 5%, I'd say everything included is pretty solidly in the top 23%, and if you like Ditko, that's pretty good. I won't get into details about the individual stories, I have someplace else where I can and will write about that.  The only real quibble in story selection is that most of these stories have been reprinted before, some quite recently (and in the case of three of the 1970s stories, in a much superior form (black and white, apparently from original art or quality stats rather than printed comics as the source) in a still-available book co-published by Ditko).  Only 4 of the 27 stories have never been reprinted before, and two of those were among the weaker stories in the book (to be fair, the other two were among the best). Obviously if you're going to get a collection with the top 23%, you'll get a few that someone else decided to reprint before, but there are a lot of gems in the 200 or so still never-reprinted Charlton short stories, some 1200 pages, that Ditko drew.

And yes, I like numbers...

Now, other than the missing story page, a big problem was a printing error which may not affect the entire print run (although I did double check with a copy not from the same source I got the one I read, so definitely not a unique error).  There's an annoying void in the artwork, about one-inch long, that occurs every 8 pages from page 64 to 160.  To wit:

(if the top right panel of page 104 of your copy doesn't look like this, let me know)

When I saw the first one I thought it might have been a scanning thing (there is another scanning issue, a page where it looks like a small piece of paper fell on the scanner beneath the comic), but when I noticed more of them, and that it occurred every 8 pages like clockwork (the size of the signatures of the book), at exactly the same place, figured it must have been a printing issue. If it's just in a very few copies, I guess that's an understandable lapse in quality control. If it's in all of them, that's quite a problem to miss.


I also question the editorial choice to present the material in what appears to be a random order, as you can see from the aforementioned list. There really does seem to be no order in either that stories or in the original art and covers used between stories.  I'm not sure why that's considered a good thing.  I don't mind reading stories out of order, but I can do that myself, and wouldn't mind having the option to easily read them in some order, maybe at least separating material by decade or something.  Strict chronological order would put slightly below-average stories both first and last, but I don't see how that's really an issue.

On the actual reproduction quality, a few months ago I said about another Ditko reprint, "there's a limit to how good a reprint can be if the source material has to be actual printed comics from the 1950s, though what's possible overall has improved tremendously in the last decade.  Late in the last century a reprint of this quality probably would have been considered state of the art.  In 2010, I'd say it's solidly average, maybe give it a 6 or 7 out of 10".  For the most part I'd say the same for this book. It gets a few points more for the larger page size, loses a few for some production issues (other than those mentioned above).  I liked the paper a bit more, liked the binding a bit less.

Which leaves the text essays.  The first is by Stan Lee.  I'm really not sure why (other than being the editor of record on a few of the original art pages he wasn't involved in the contents), but it's typical Lee, whatever that may mean to you, with a few of those Lee-isms that I'm sure some people still find charming.  The book's editor Craig Yoe writes a few pieces, partly about his own interactions with Ditko (including an entertaining story about introducing him to Jim Henson) and about some of the stories reprinted.  Most interesting was a short piece by Jerry Robinson, who taught Ditko in the early 1950s.  Not really anything in here that he hasn't talked about in interviews before, but always good to hear from Robinson. John Romita provides some thoughts on following Ditko on Spider-Man, and P. Craig Russell writes a few things on his long time as a fan and brief time as an inker of Ditko. As they say, mostly harmless, although like the rest of the book the text pages could have benefited from another one or two editorial/proofing passes.

So, as I said, worth getting as a relatively inexpensive and easy to obtain sampler of some of the better works of a substantial body of work spanning over 20 years, but disappointing overall for a variety of reasons.  An inferior presentation of superior material.  Overall I'd give it a 6/10.

Some new Ditko...

New Ditko comic is out now, and it includes a preview of the cover to the next Ditko comic. Here's a quick teaser...

Full cover and title over here tomorrow morning.

STRANGE SUSPENSE: THE STEVE DITKO ARCHIVES Vol. 1

STRANGE SUSPENSE is a recently published hardcover collection from Fantagraphics featuring 34 of the 35 stories drawn by Steve Ditko published from 1953 to 1955, primarily for Charlton Comics after a few for other publishers, plus the 20 covers he drew for Charlton in that era.

The stories included being public domain, they're all readily available online, and all but a few have also been recently reprinted in black and white, along with other early Ditko work, in various books from Pure Imagination.  So this won't be a review of the actual stories and art (if you want to know what I think of each story, check over here, and you can read them all there as well) (since, as far as I know, neither Ditko nor anyone who wrote the stories is participating in the book financially, there shouldn't be any guilt about reading them for free online).  For the stories, I'd say about a third of them are just plain bad, of no interest apart from the drawings, a third are mediocre but solidly readable examples of comics from that era and a third have something more there (though sometimes that something more is lifted from other sources), though none would be considered a masterpiece on the strength of the words.  The art is consistently better than the writing, of course, and while it's often rough around the edges, especially in the first half, it's always interesting, especially if you're interested in Ditko's full career, as there are hints of his influences (some very heavy Eisner-esque moments early on) and his future (several horror landscapes beg comparison to his later Doctor Strange work, and you tell me if Rumpelstiltskin doesn't remind you of some later Ditko designs).  The covers are generally superior to the story artwork, though that might be mostly a function of better reproduction, and those include some genuine classics.

So apart from the actual quality of the stories, this book is an adequate but unexceptional presentation of the material. There's a limit to how good a reprint can be if the source material has to be actual printed comics from the 1950s, though what's possible overall has improved tremendously in the last decade.  Late in the last century a reprint of this quality probably would have been considered state of the art.  In 2010, I'd say it's solidly average, maybe give it a 6 or 7 out of 10.  Most of the choices made were right.  The paper is a nice thick non-glossy white that holds the colours well and not even a hint of what's printed on the other side of the page bleeds through.  The binding is a thing of beauty (an old annoyance of mine), I really wish someone would use this to show some other publishers what a properly bound hardcover looks like.  The 7x10 page size is a bit on the small side, but still close to what the original comics were printed at.  I suppose I'm spoiled by some larger reprints done recently (the Pure Imagination reprints of the same stories have about a 20% larger image area), and I know that given the print quality of the source material against modern printing technology there isn't really any extra detail that would come out in a larger print size, but still, I'm getting old and big letters are easier to read than small letters.

But, overall, it's pretty much just high quality scans of the printed comics with minimal digital tweaking to get rid of the most obvious artifacts of their low quality source (the age and grain of the newsprint and the ink bleeding through from the other side of the page).   There doesn't seem to be any attempt to adjust anything else, even obvious colour registration errors, but I understand why there wasn't, and in a way am glad there wasn't a minor effort made to do that, since if you're going to do those kinds of corrections, you really do need to go all the way.

Other than those 224 pages of comics and covers, the only supplemental material in here is the 6 page introduction by Blake Bell (the original solicitation mentioned "short essays by some of the comic book industry giants - Daniel Clowes, Gilbert Hernandez, etc.", but unless they were so short as to be microscopic they aren't here).  There's nothing much of interest in there that adds to the book, although the introduction does include the first page of the one Ditko story from the era not included in this collection, as well as an interesting alternative version of the final page of one story, where the last panel (which had no art, just a caption and a space for a newspaper clipping) was replaced in the printed version by an ad and pages from a few other stories of the era that might (or might not) have Ditko's hand in them.  Anyway, the full introduction is available in the Amazon preview of the book, so you can judge that for yourself.  One odd omission, as far as I noticed there's no mention anywhere in the book of Bruce Hamilton, the only known writer of any of these stories. Seems a shame to reprint his story and not include his credit (especially as it's one of the three best stories in here), or any of his account of working as a freelancer in comics in those days which adds a lot of background.

I'd say overall, if you really want to read the stories and appreciate the more important bits of Ditko's art, go with the Pure Imagination reprints (though they have their own flaws).  If colour is important to you, go with the scans available at the links above.  The quality varies, but the full comics add a nice measure of context to the stories, seeing them with the original surrounding stories and ads, and my versions, well, they're easy to find and they're free, what do you expect me to say about them.  If colour is important and you don't like to read comics on your computer screen, then I guess this is the book for you.  Or I guess you could print out the scans from those other sources, but it's probably easier to get this book.

So, overall, as I said, the book is adequate by the standards of the day.  I'd give it maybe a 6/10.  If the material in here wasn't so readily available elsewhere in forms I prefer I'd probably bump that up to an 8/10.

In Ditko's world, sometimes justice takes the form of a kick to the face...

From Steve Ditko's latest, DITKO PRESENTS, now available if you give your consent to an exchange of your honestly earned $ for his honestly produced comics.

Dave Sim on STRANGE AND STRANGER

The following review is © 2008 Dave Sim (note, now posted here), and first appeared in DITKOMANIA #67, August 2008, published by Rob Imes, and appears here by permission of Dave Sim and Rob Imes. The original issue is still available from Rob for $2.50 postpaid in the US, and includes a great exclusive original backcover by Dave Sim of Spider-Ham with a Doctor Strange inspired background. See here for more information on ordering, subscribing or contributing. #68 is out now and includes the first reactions to the review in the letter column, and for Sim fans you can expect some more contributions from him in future issues.

On a personal note, while I don't agree with everything in Sim's review, I do think it makes several important points that are largely missing from commentary on the book and on Ditko in general, so I'm glad they've allowed me to share it here. I'll include more in the comments to this post, and I welcome the comments of anyone reading (and Rob will share those comments with Dave, and if he replies I'll add a pointer to the comments section).

Also, ordering info for Ditko's creator owned independent work. You'll see why after you read the review.

---

STRANGE AND STRANGER
One Man’s View
by Dave Sim

[Sim's complete essay can now be found at the Moment Of Cerebus site]

(Dave Sim is the legendary independent comics creator who wrote, drew, and self-published the groundbreaking 300-issue Cerebus series from 1977 to 2004, which can be found collected in thick trade paperback volumes at the better comics shops and bookstores. His most recent projects are the graphic novel Judenhass, concerning the Holocaust, and the Glamourpuss series, which is both a satire of fashion magazines and an analysis of classic photorealistic comic art. The second issue of Glamourpuss was released in July. Both titles are published by Aardvark-Vanaheim, Inc., P.O. Box 1674, Station C, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada N2G 4R2.)

---

Robin Snyder and Steve Ditko published books
Click for Ordering Info

An interminable examination of the Ditko/Stanton contradiction that isn't

As long as we're on the subject of Ditko (and yes, I know there's a whole weblog devoted to Ditko that I run, but things like this don't fit there).

I'll warn you right now that I doubt one person in a million finds this as interesting as I do, and even most of them won't like the long way around I go to get there. For that matter, it's not even so much that I find the topic interesting as I'm tired about the way it's discussed every now and then, and I expect it to get worse. There's a quick summary at the end, and don't worry, you won't miss any bondage artwork, there is none.

Some of you have probably heard something like this about Steve Ditko:

"Ditko denies working on several of Eric Stanton's bondage/fetish comics, despite clear evidence that he did, out of either embarrassment or some later Randian-based philosophical objection to the material"

Overall this is a minor thing, but there there are a few things that never quite seemed right about that version (and that's pretty much how it's always presented, including in the recent STRANGE AND STRANGER, where most of the quotes below are taken from, pages 50-51), and I sometimes see it used to cast doubt on other things Ditko writes, in an "If he'll lie about the Stanton stuff, why trust him on the Spider-Man stuff?" kind of way. Something not obviously related that I read a few years ago pointed me to an alternative way of looking at that situation that seems to match more of the facts and is much more satisfying.

Some background.

You probably know who Steve Ditko is. Eric Stanton was also a comic book artist, who Steve Ditko shared a New York studio with for about a decade (circa 1958-1968, according to Stanton). He's generally known for some pretty raunchy work, featuring frequent themes of bondage and the like, quite different in theme from the work that Ditko produced.

Except that there are a number of Stanton signed and credited stories that feature a strong resemblance to Ditko's work. Apparently there were at times even rumours that "Stanton" was a pen-name that Ditko used, although that's long debunked. Anyway, while I don't think Ditko has ever commented on the record about any of that, Stanton has said a few things, like he "asked Steve Ditko to ink" some of those comics. So, if you care about that stuff, look at the comics, look at Ditko's work of the era, look at Stanton's other work of the era and weigh Stanton's public statements and come to your own conclusions or lack of conclusions.

Whether Ditko worked on the material and how much is actually a side issue.

Upon noticing the visual similarities between Ditko's work and those Stanton stories, some people have asked Ditko about the work, or written about it accepting the premise that it was Ditko's work, and Ditko's reaction has provoked some comments and speculation. Cat Yronwode has said that she "felt that he lied" in his denial of the work when she asked him about it for a checklist she was producing. Other accounts, such as Joe Rubinstein's, are that his denial came in the form of a carefully worded statement that he "dare[d] anyone to prove [he] inked that". Since Yronwode doesn't actually quote what Ditko said, just that she "felt" it was a lie, I think the possibility is strong that Ditko's statement to her was equally carefully worded.

So let's grant that Ditko's statements on the work can be described as carefully worded and perhaps agitated non-denials that amount to "no comment".

The trouble I have is when people try to read into his reaction to questions about that work and that reaction's apparent contradiction to statements he's made about "earned credit" and honesty. The reading generally takes the form, as Blake Bell puts it, that he reacts this way "either from adopting the tenets of Ayn Rand's philosophy, or perhaps through some kind of old-school embarrassment". I don't really see the conflict with that work and anything Ditko's written about his philosophy based on Objectivism, or even what I know of Rand's version of it, although some like Yronwode seem to. I guess embarrassment is possible, but again, nothing else really suggests that.

Is there a third explanation that actually does match some other reported Ditko behaviour?

---

A tangent, if you'll indulge me.

When Ditko left Marvel, he had an incredible workload on Doctor Strange and Spider-Man. 30 pages of plot, pencils and inks a month, plus a cover for Spider-Man, and even some other work, plus he had already started plotting and pencilling the bi-monthly revival of Captain Atom for Charlton. That's impressive even if that work didn't include some of the greatest super-hero comics of all time. And that means when he quit, he had a lot of time open in his schedule, so it's no surprise that his work began popping up all over the place. The work at Charlton continued and increased. His work quickly began appearing every month in Warren's alternating bi-monthly horror magazines CREEPY and EERIE. He did some work with Wallace Wood for Tower's THUNDER AGENTS.

And some work appeared at ACG with the Ditko/Trapani byline. Ditko/Trapani work also appeared at Dell, some signed, some uncredited.

Now, Sal Trapani, I'll quote Mark Evanier on this one:

Often, when one hears that Sal Trapani was the artist of some comic, that would mean one would have no idea who'd pencilled it. Mr. Trapani was a fine inker and he was credited with pencilling a lot of comic books during his career...but his modus operandi was to farm that part of each job out to someone else. Among those who did his work for him at different times were Jack Abel, Dick Giordano, Steve Ditko, Chic Stone, Bill Molno, John Giunta and Charles Nicholas.

Around the time Ditko's last few Marvel stories were appearing, two stories, "The Valley Where Time Stood Still" and "The Way-Out Worlds of Bertram Tilley" appeared in DC's science fiction anthology STRANGE ADVENTURES (#188 and #189, respectively). Those two uncredited stories certainly have the same look as the Ditko/Trapani material of the era, and Ditko had never done any work for DC prior to this, and wouldn't for almost two years (and after some major editorial shifts at the company) when The Creeper launched in SHOWCASE #73 [1968].

So it's not surprising that people interested in such things would be curious, so I'll quote Evanier again, this time from a note that Fred Hembeck quoted in 2005:

That "Bertram Tilley" story in STRANGE ADVENTURES was almost certainly a case of Trapani getting the job and calling on Ditko to help. Somewhere in the files I have in storage, I have a letter Ditko sent me around 1969 in which he responds to a question I asked him about it. He said that the first CREEPER story was the first time he ever worked for DC, and that if he helped a friend out on some job, it was none of anyone's business.

End of the tangent.

---

So what does Sal Trapani have to do with Eric Stanton? What do some mildly entertaining but staid science fiction comics have to do with some notorious bondage/fetish comics?

Ditko's response to inquiries on both, lacking exact quotes, seems pretty similar. No one's business, can't prove it. Does anything in those STRANGE ADVENTURES stories violate the "tenets of Ayn Rand's philosophy"? Is there anything in them to be embarrassed by?

The (paraphrased) wording that the Creeper story was the first time he "worked for DC" is key. If he did indeed work on those stories he wasn't doing it "for DC", he wasn't contracted to do it by DC, he wasn't paid by DC, he wasn't credited by DC (I doubt that particular editor would have wanted Ditko in his book). He was doing it as a ghost artist for Trapani.

Which seems to be the relationship with Stanton if he did indeed help draw those stories that people identify as having Ditko art. Stories signed by Stanton, contracted to Stanton, if any part drawn by Ditko then ghosted by him, "helped a friend out on some job".

Told you this would be a long way to go for not much payoff. I think it's a plausible statement that Ditko does not comment, for whatever reason, on work contracted by friends that he might have helped out on in any capacity, what would be considered "ghost work" and thus not a credit that he has earned.

---

So, for those skipping to the end, I think that while it's entirely possible that Ditko does not acknowledge the Eric Stanton work that resembles his style out of some unspecified philosophical objections or out of plain embarrassment, I would propose that a more viable third alternative is that he simply does not wish to acknowledge or comment on any ghost work he's ever done, a policy consistent with a report of his reaction to questions about some possible work with Sal Trapani which does not carry the same "issues" that the Stanton work does.

So look at the work or don't, see what you want to see, weigh the evidence of your eyes, knowledge of art styles and Stanton's words and believe what you want to believe. To the extent that I care, I choose the version consistent with the most facts.

The Curious Incident of the Cut Artwork

The Curious Incident of the Cut Artwork
A Cautionary Fable
Illustration by Steve Ditko

Whatever one has learned, understands, knows or experienced, is one's personal intellectual property, private property and individual property. Some facts and truths are available as "public knowledge."

Other facts, truths and knowledge belong to the individual who possessed (owns) it and paid the price in time, effort and experience. It is his earned knowledge and intellectual and personal property.

S. Ditko, AVENGING WORLD [2002], page 110

"Ditko cuts his artwork. He was using some valuable classic artwork as a cutting board."

If you care about the kind of stuff I write about, you've probably heard that said. Sometimes in a matter of fact way, sometimes in more irresponsible ways ("I heard Ditko's cutting up all his Spider-Man artwork!!"). Some argue that it's his right to do so if he pleases, others use it as evidence that there's something wrong with Ditko. There's been idle speculation about his motives for years. But almost everyone starts with the premise that Ditko has cut his artwork. Among the people who don't accept that premise, the general belief seems to be that the story (as told by Greg Theakston) is a lie. Theakston's motive for telling such an odd lie never seems to be specified.

Is this a valid premise based on the evidence? Either Ditko used some of his artwork as a cutting board or Theakston lied about it?

Personally, I don't think Ditko cut his artwork. And I don't think Greg Theakston is lying.

Let's step back and take a look.

---

The story has been around for over a decade. I don't know where I first heard it, but probably the most widespread telling was in this account that appeared in Wizard Magazine in 2002. Transcription copied from here, not independently verified. Please read this carefully.

Take for example, one of [Comic publisher and restorer, Greg] Theakston’s last visits to Ditko’s studio. While embroiled in a conversation, the historian noticed a piece of illustration board leaning up against a wall, slashed to pieces.

“He’d been using it as a cutting board,” Theakston said. “I looked a little bit closer and I detected a comics code stamp on it.”

He asked Ditko to turn the board around, a request met with a deadening gaze from the artist.

“I didn’t think he was going to do it,” the historian recounted. “It looked like a ‘Screw you’ look.”

Slowly, however, Ditko reached out and flipped over the board. It was a page of original art from a late 1950s issue of Journey Into Mystery, a splash featuring a hard helmet diver. Theakston couldn’t believe it. Not only was Ditko not displaying, preserving or prizing this piece of original art, he was using it as a cutting board.

Theakston quickly offered Ditko a deal: “Steve, I will go down to the nearest art supply store and buy you a cutting board that will mend itself-a plastic cutting board that’s so smart that when you cut on it, it mends itself-and you’ll have the finest cutting board on the block.” “Nope,” Ditko replied, twisting the artwork-turned-cutting-board back around.

Theakston pleaded. “Steve, geez. That’s worth a fair amount of money. At the very least-damn, Steve-it’s an artifact. It’s an important piece of publishing history in terms of comics.”

The artist turned and pointed to the drapery-obscured window next to Theakston’s chair. “Lift that curtain up,” he said.

The curtain, the historian estimated, was about 18 inches off the floor. He pulled the drape aside and saw a stack of original artwork from Marvel standing roughly a foot-and-a-half high.

“Can I look at these?” Theakston excitedly asked.

“No.”

The writer was dumbfounded. “I was sitting next to a hundred thousand, two hundred thousand dollars, maybe, worth of Ditko artwork and he was cutting it up without letting people look at it.”

Did you catch it? Probably not. I'll get there. For the record, Greg Theakston has confirmed that the page in question is actually from a Charlton comic, THIS MAGAZINE IS HAUNTED #16 [1958], not Marvel's JOURNEY INTO MYSTERY (and thanks to the various people who helped to find it). A minor point, true, but a good lesson to not believe everything you read. Let's take a look at the alleged victim.

A nice enough page, but I can see why it needed to die.

Just kidding. Man, can that dude draw. Read "The Green Peace" here, by the way.

Okay, so back to the story. I want to make this clear. The artwork was standing against a wall with cut marks on the back. Nowhere in that story does Greg Theakston say that he witnessed Ditko, knife in hand, cut the artwork. No direct account from Greg I have read has ever stated that. Unless Greg comes out now and says he did see that, anyone who reports the story as "Theakston saw Ditko using art as a cutting board" is wrong.

Minor point? Not really. Because I'm going to ask you to read the story again, and notice that at no point does Greg say that Ditko says he was using the artwork as a cutting board. From what I see, it's something Greg assumed, and then spoke from the premise he assumed.

But, you ask, surely Ditko would have corrected Theakston if he was wrong? To that I say, you haven't read that much about Ditko, have you? Not volunteering information is entirely consistent with Ditko's behaviour. Now is the time to go back to the quote that opens this article and figure out why it's there.

Now, I've chosen not to run this theory by Greg before posting, but he's welcome to confirm if Ditko ever acknowledged using the artwork as a cutting board, or just let Greg assume he had.

Okay, now you ask, the artwork was still cut, how do you explain that? Honestly, I don't even want to try. Accidents happen. I cut my finger cutting some onions once. Doesn't mean I don't value at least nine of the little darlings (sometimes that left middle finger bugs me). I once spilled water on some comics, including a comic book I love more than half my family (fortunately not an expensive one to replace).

And one explanation, the one I believe pending further evidence? This was actually easier to make when I thought it was Marvel art, but it works almost as well for Charlton. Those companies, if you'll pardon my language, treated the artwork like shit for decades. They weren't housing the artwork in archival conditions. Professional archivists probably weep when they hear about how the art was treated. Besides the most valuable work being stolen, there are multiple stories of the artwork being deliberately damaged (especially in the Marvel warehouse). Reportedly some of the fraction of his artwork Kirby got back was ripped in half. Steve Bissette has talked about getting new artwork back with a "hole the size of a quarter punched through the dead center" of two pages. If you see a damaged page of artwork, why assume the damage was done by the artist, when it was the company that had physical possession of the artwork for over 90% of the time since it was created.

Or maybe he was using the art as a cutting board, as is entirely his right. Certainly I feel he has more right to do that than people who own Ditko artwork of questionable provenance (a polite way of saying "stolen artwork") have to own that work. My point is not to "prove what happened", it's to show that we don't know what happened, and it turns out we know much less than we thought we did, and when you step back and look at all the facts, strip away assumptions, you might find you can come up with a theory that has fewer contradictions, does not require assuming someone is crazy or someone is lying and just fits the facts better.

So believe what you want to believe, but if I've put even a hint of doubt in your mind, next time you hear the "fact" that Ditko cuts his artwork, politely point out that that might not be true, direct people to this page. At the worst they'll get to see a really good page of Ditko art.

So, this is my theory, which belongs to me.

Ditko in 1998

Pursuant to some recent internet discussion, an account of Ditko's visit to DC, written by an anonymous DC staffer and published in some of their April 1998 books (including JLA #17). Unrelated image redacted since I didn't like how it looked.

Not so Strange

The recent book about Steve Ditko, STRANGE AND STRANGER: THE WORLD OF STEVE DITKO, written by Blake Bell and published by Fantagraphics Books, is a very attractive but problematic book.

The attraction is obvious, hundreds of images drawn by Steve Ditko over a half-century can't help but be attractive, even if picked at random and printed from tracings of second generation copies (you know, what Marvel uses), and this book has a well selected cross-section of his prolific career, with excellent quality reproduction on most of them, whether sourced from printed comics, original art, copies or otherwise. With the high quality paper and large page size in this book, this is probably the best printing many of these images will ever seen.

On the production, though, I should mention that the quality is somewhat crippled by a puzzling design choice to frequently enlarge the images beyond the size of the book and print them with cropped edges. This mars over two dozen of the pages, and a few also have captions or insets over the images, drawing attention away from the content to the design. Combined with an inexplicable absence of an index or table of contents this makes the book a lot less than it could have been.

A few highlights, especially to those overly, maybe obsessively, familiar with Ditko's published work (yeah, I have a copy of his issue of BIG BOY, why do you ask?), include the following new to me, some of which I'd heard of before but never seen, others complete surprises:
- Action figure packaging for Archie's Mighty Crusaders (page 147)
- "Albert Grossman's Ghost" illustration for a music magazine (page 155) (I'm trying to figure out if I can justify saying any of those background faces is Bob Dylan)
- Elaborate pencil sketches for Speedball (pages 160-161)
- Character designs for an unrealized humour series, "Ooky and Zooky" (page 199)

Numerous Ditko illustrations for fanzines and other limited distribution venues are also reprinted, most of which I'd seen before, but it's nice to have them all in one place.

A number of published pages are also reproduced alongside copies (of variable quality) of Ditko's pencils, including pages that would ultimately be inked by Ditko himself (late period AMAZING SPIDER-MAN) or by others, including P. Craig Russell (ROM), Tom Palmer (ROM), Mike Esposito (CHUCK NORRIS, don't ask), Jackson Guice (SPEEDBALL), John Severin (WHAT THE--?!), Art Thibert (ACTION COMICS) and Bill Reinhold (PHANTOM 2040). That provides an interesting look at what Ditko brought to those works, where the finished product roams all over the map. His pencil drawing is very loose compared to his usual final art, and understandably considered "breakdowns" by many inkers (some who chose not to work over them for the page rate offered for inking full pencils), and it's interesting to see the tactics various inkers use, and easy to see why Ditko was always his own best inker. Although I always thought Reinhold did an especially fine job of making inking choices that emulate Ditko's own finishes. I don't know if he was paid nearly enough to justify the work, but if I was an editor picking someone to ink Ditko he'd be first on my list.

Three short stories are also reprinted in full, all of them dating from before 1957. "Stretching Things", the Bruce Hamilton written story that is believed to be Ditko's first story bought by a publisher, opens the book, with some sharp black and white reproduction. A section on Ditko's humour work includes the two stories he drew for Charlton's FROM HERE TO INSANITY, which are more interesting than good, but a nice look at his range.

Of the other artwork, nearly every major facet of Ditko's public career is represented to some extent. Highlights include several pages of his brief period with Warren, a few apparently from the original art, which shows that even the original printings didn't do the work justice, much less the reprints. Hopefully the current owner of the work will do right by it in the upcoming reprints (and hopefully they'll do a collection of just Ditko's 16 stories for Warren, since I don't want to buy six $50 hardcovers to get them all). The closing selection of several 1950s Charlton covers demonstrate his strikingly effective early work and a number of well chosen later-day Charlton pages show that those stories are as under-rated for their visual inventiveness as they were ill-served by their printing.

Depending on your taste there are some things you'll consider serious omissions (seriously, no Killjoy? If I was laying out the book my second day would be spent deciding which specific Killjoy page to use and if I can justify putting it on the cover), but that's inevitable with an artist as prolific as Ditko and a limited number of pages to work with. Fans of his DC work will be especially disappointed, with only three non-cover images.

So, overall, I think anyone attracted to Ditko's art (and if you aren't, would you really be reading this far?) will get at least the on-line discounted price of value from it before they read a single word of the text.

That's where we get to problematic...

I don't think it's any secret that this probably isn't the kind of book Ditko would have wanted written about him, and he wasn't involved in the production of this book at all. That has a kind of limiting effect on the book, which Bell seems well aware of, and he does an admirable job, for the most part, of working within that, keeping his sources of information identified and keeping to the facts. I don't know what specific information Ditko might object to having been included here (probably including the photographs, and I think every known available photo of Ditko is in here), but personally, I don't think that most of the information that was dug up about his pre-professional life presented early in the book are really more than trivially edifying on understanding his life or work, certainly not enough to justify the research that uncovered some of it in the 1980s for an unrealized biography was done. Research that Ditko later termed a "violation", after his participation in the project was secured as an art book (and as his feelings about it are reported in this biography). Don't misunderstand me, I think there's a place for an unauthorized biography of a living person in some conditions, but I'm not sure those conditions apply to Ditko.

So absent Ditko's involvement, much of this is derived from actual publishing evidence, anecdotes from various people who interacted with Ditko and some of Ditko's public statements. That information is carefully sourced, and I suppose it's useful to have it all in one place with the sourcing (I had heard a lot of these stories before but didn't know all the specific sources, and some are new to me), but building on that foundation does leave some structural gaps.

And filling those gaps is I think the big flaw of the book. Ayn Rand. Ditko and his work are often called Randian. I'm not sure that's accurate (it's possible Rand didn't), but it certainly is repeated a lot, and it's a well that Bell goes to often in his attempts to explain Ditko's actions from the mid-1960s to the present day. I think Rand's name is the second most common in this book, and in fact is featured in two chapter titles, and the characters and concepts from her books ATLAS SHRUGGED and THE FOUNTAINHEAD are referenced frequently both in comparison to Ditko's fictional works and the choices of the real life Ditko, and most of his actions are presented through a Randian lens. To switch metaphors yet again, Rand is in effect the Rosetta Stone that Bell bases his interpretation of Ditko's life on, and I remain unconvinced that it didn't all get lost in translation.

I don't question that Ditko read Rand, there's ample evidence of that, and I think it's reasonable to read a considerable influence of ideas that Ditko was exposed to through those readings in both his work and his attitudes, but I can't help but feeling that it's simplistic to think that the fiction and "philosophy" of this woman who, as far as I know, Ditko never met somehow provides the key to unlocking the vault of Ditko (another switch in metaphors), a safe which isn't even as tightly shut as many people believe (and Bell shows admirable restraint in not using the oft-applied misnomers like "hermit" or "recluse" to describe Ditko).

I suspect I'm going to have a lot more to say on this book in the future, as I've raised and will continue to raise specific line-by-line objections with Bell, and suspect that answers will be illuminating, and don't want to comment on some specific conclusions he makes that I currently disagree with until I've had a chance to weigh any responses and do some research. If my objections and those of others are posted publicly with responses I'll update this with a link.

For now, I think the book is well worth picking up for the art alone, and the text is very informative as long as you keep two important things in mind. First, consider the source for all information, which Bell does a good job of documenting (do not ignore the extensive endnotes, which also include the details of Bell's personal interactions with Ditko and some of Ditko's reaction to the long-ago announcement Bells intention to do such a book, terming it a "poison sandwich"), and remember that people lie, and so do publishers. Second, take any statement ascribing motives to Ditko and treat them as Bell's speculation, not fact (which I don't feel he always makes as clear as he could), especially if explained via Randian metaphor. What Ditko did at various times is a matter of public record. Why he did them, for now, usually remains with Ditko, to whom we give the last word:

"My work is me. I do my best, and if I like it, I hope somebody else likes it too."
attributed to S. Ditko, circa 1967
Books by Ditko

IN SEARCH OF STEVE DITKO by Jonathan Ross

I had Jonathan Ross's BBC documentary IN SEARCH OF STEVE DITKO sitting on my hard drive for a few months now, but didn't get around to watching it until after I read Ditko's new THE AVENGING MIND. It actually turned out to be quite enjoyable, for the most part. I'm not familiar with Ross, but he was obviously quite enthusiastic about the subject, and it was good to see a lengthy mainstream airing of the issues regarding credit for the creation of Spider-Man. I could quibble a bit with some of the details and chronology as presented, and the whole thing was, understandably but to my mind regrettably, too focused on the Marvel years with Spider-Man and Doctor Strange (Charlton is pretty much only mentioned with regards to the Question, for example, that mostly to lead up to Mr. A, so no mention of Blue Beetle or Captain Atom). Worth watching, to be sure.

A few other quick notes.

It was good to see Jerry Robinson, who taught Ditko in the early 1950s. Flo Steinberg's remembrances about the 1960s "Bullpen" were also a treat. Romita's thoughts on taking over Spider-Man and the changes he brought to the series are interesting.

The interview with Stan Lee was good in that Ross didn't just accept Lee's initial statement about Spider-Man being co-created by Ditko, with its qualifications, but pressed on to find out what Lee's actual view is, which goes a long way to explaining Ditko's recent comments on Lee's tone (not being sure if Ditko actually saw this, since I don't believe he references it directly).

Alan Moore had a few nice bits in here, and definitely the best camera presence of any of the comic creators interviewed. I liked his amusement at the reported reaction of Ditko to Rorschach ("he's like Mr. A, except he's insane"), and his recitation of the chorus to his song "Mr. A" (to the tune of "Sister Ray") is just brilliantly insane. Seriously, I've listened to it a few dozen times.

The perhaps misguided, but again understandable, visit by Ross and Neil Gaiman to Ditko's office (with the camera crew left outside) was a lot less awkward than I expected. Certainly worth it for the reference to Etta Candy and Fight Club.

So, recommended with reservations. Don't take anything in it as gospel, but an appreciated glimpse into a strange tale.

THE AVENGING MIND by Steve Ditko

THE AVENGING MIND (ordering info here) is a recently published collection of essays and illustrations by Steve Ditko, published by Ditko and Robin Snyder, apparently their first publication of Ditko's work outside of his continuing contributions to Snyder's fanzine THE COMICS since the massive 240-page AVENGING WORLD collection of comics, illustrations and essays in 2002.

This publication is less imposing, weighing in at 36 pages, 26 of them text (10 essays, primarily about Stan Lee and the credits for the creation of Spider-Man) and 10 illustrated (all apparently new illustrations, except for two coming from Ditko's 1992 story "Lazlo's Hammer", oddly from the actual 1992 version, not the revised 2002 "Laszlo's Hammer").

If you're familiar with Ditko's past essay writing, you know what to expect. A kind of oblique style, frequent digressions into sometimes vaguely related analogies and a near constant relating of the issues at hand to the "A is A" philosophy that is central to much of his work, and seemingly his life, for the last few decades.

"Toyland" is the first essay, and is accompanied by the two pages reprinted from "Lazlo's Hammer". Unlike the other essays, it has less to do with the creation of the characters than it does their modern handling, as Ditko was apparently set off by comments by current Marvel editor-in-chief Joe Quesada in this convention panel report. Not surprisingly, Ditko is not impressed with the "These toys are meant to be broken" attitude of Quesada towards the "toys" that he had a hand in creating. He takes a long and not entirely clear way of saying it, and in fact he said it all a lot better years before Quesada ever said those words in the full "Laszlo's Hammer" story. While I have a great deal of sympathy for Ditko's views on this (and don't read very many modern Marvel comics as a result), I just wish instead of railing against such things at length he would go ahead and do some comics about the kind of heroes he thinks should be written about (but more on that later).

Which brings us to the main thrust of the book, Ditko's examination of what Stan Lee has said about their work together, and Ditko's specific objections to both the substance and the tone of what Lee says. That takes up some 20 pages of text and the next seven essays. While sometimes Ditko's style makes them rough going, there are some interesting historical facts and bits of insight buried within them. Some of these may be old news, since I haven't read all of the essays Ditko has written in the last few years.

"Roislecxe", being "Excelsior" in reverse, takes a look at a few choice quotes from the book Stan Lee co-wrote by that name. I haven't read the book, since I've long since found Lee's persona to be grating and his statements about history to be at best suspect and self-serving. The quotes that Ditko chooses to deconstruct back that up. I can't much blame Ditko for being upset at some of that, although when he breaks it down in such detail it begins to appear that he's looking for causes for offence (objecting to Lee referring to Spider-Man as "the webswinger").

"Creator or Co-Creator??" looks at Lee's definition of "creator" and what Ditko sees at some inherent contradictions in Lee's views expressed at various times and with reality.

"Creative Crediting" is about how Ditko feels that the printed credits on the comics of the early 1960s were misleading, implying to an outside observer that Lee did more than he actually did, since he never got a full script from Lee before drawing a story. Fair enough, although I don't see his model of a more honest credit, "A co-creation by writer, Stan Lee and artist Steve Ditko", as much of an improvement to how that hypothetical outsider would see the division of labour.

"He Giveth and He Taketh Away" turns the focus to Lee's tone in discussing these matters, in particular his joking manner, and how Ditko feels that the Lee uses various tricks to undermine what credit he does sometimes give to the artists he worked with. As I said, I've found Lee's persona an irritant for a long time now, and it's interesting to see Ditko's analysis of some aspects of that persona and his interpretation of the reasons for it. Also, a very interesting aside in this section, Ditko states that he drew the first Doctor Strange story on his own (plot and pencils), without any prior discussion with Lee on it. Of course we're all familiar with the Lee "'Twas Steve's idea" 1963 letter about Doctor Strange, but this is the first I recall reading Ditko's claim that the whole story was pencilled before Lee's involvement. A lot of potential follow up lines of enquiry seem to be called for based on Ditko's wording there.

"Lifting and the Lifter" turns to what appears to be a particular point of irritation for Ditko, Lee's claiming credit for the famous sequence in AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #33 where Spider-Man struggles to throw off the debris he's buried under, despite the fact that Ditko was plotting the book with no input from Lee for over 9 issues by that point. What I find most interesting about Ditko's recollections of that period is that Ditko always stresses the point that "Stan Lee chose not to communicate with me on anything". It's an interesting point to stress, especially since most accounts (presumably coloured by Lee's version of events) seem to imply the opposite.

"Revealing Styles" is more on Lee's tone, including Ditko's famous objection to Lee's use of the word "considered". As much sympathy as I have for Ditko's view, though, I have to say that current news shows that analogies to the Munich Accord and the 9/11 attacks might not be the best way to make a point about comic book history.

"Martin Goodman/Stan Lee" closes off this series, with a point that Ditko had been building up to for a while. It's hard to tell with him, but I think this is Ditko's attempt to make a reductio ad absurdum argument, that if you take Lee's positions at face value, Marvel publisher Martin Goodman has a more valid claim to "creator" credit than Lee.

Two more short essays follow. "They Are The..." seems to be about how Robin Snyder doesn't get enough positive feedback for publishing Ditko's essays, which I guess is fair enough, although I never got the impression that Snyder was in danger of not publishing them without more feedback, and Ditko is enigmatic enough that it's not exactly clear he wants feedback.

"The Mark and the Stain", I'm not completely sure what this is about, it seems to refer to people unnamed and events unrecounted. The underlying metaphor is rather vivid, which I liked, and it also seems that Ditko's not a big fan of zombie covers on recent Marvel comics, which is a cause I can get behind.

Now, the eight pages of new Ditko art, a bit of a mixed bag. A few of them are pretty much just variations of stuff Ditko has done better in the past, and others seem to be making straw man arguments (although with some nice art). There is one nicely designed, if historically questionable, cartoon with some cavemen and a dinosaur, which nicely pokes fun at Lee's definition of creation, and shows a sense of humour that Ditko would be well advised to integrate into his text more. The backcover shows a pair of new creations by Ditko, unnamed characters in the noble hero and pure villain mode, which it seems are planned for publication in a book later this year. News of more actual comics from Ditko is always good news.

Now, I've gone on about this book at length, mostly for my own future reference. Is it worth getting? It depends. A lot of it is frustrating, but worth it if you make your way though it all. Certainly Ditko has some interesting views, and it's welcome that he's somewhat more willing to engage in comics history than he has in the past. Not for everyone, but if you're curious than it probably is for you.

What's most frustrating is that, after reading all of this, I can't answer the simple question "What does Ditko want?", either because I'm too dense or Ditko is too oblique. Not that I think it would be in my power to give it to him, but you'd think publishing this thing there would be at least a clue to what he thinks the path to resolving this to his satisfaction would be. He tends to be dismissive of comics fandom as believing everything Stan Lee says, which I have to say is not my experience at all. Maybe it depends on who you talk to, but as I said I don't find Lee's act that amusing, and have long decided to take everything he says about his past and his collaborations as suspect. My general impression of other fans has been that they find his persona more charming than I do, especially those who have met him personally (I haven't, although I was once about three feet from him), but the suspicion about his accuracy is there to some degree in anyone with more than a casual knowledge/interest in the subject. The problem doesn't seem to be fandom swallowing Lee's version whole, but that Lee's version is all they've had for so long, and it's frankly pretty amazing that the view of Ditko as the co-creator of Spider-Man and Doctor Strange (and in the view of many the more important co-creator) manages to be as widespread as it is despite Ditko's prior refusal to engage the issue in a widely available forum (and his still enigmatic and round-about way of engaging in it now).

Well, anyway, this is too long by half, even with me mentally cutting out a lot of other stuff I wanted to say, and the odds of anyone getting all the way down here are slim. If you did, let me know and maybe we can discuss it further.

Ditko's Machine Man

One of two unused Ditko cover designs for MACHINE MAN that appeared in THE COMIC READER #176, this one on the backcover.

THE STEVE DITKO READER v3

Recently released is THE STEVE DITKO READER v3, another 160 page collection of Ditko's work for Charlton in the 1950s (plus one later gem) from Pure Imagination. This is also the third major Ditko reprint book of the year, following one from Marvel and one from Vanguard and it the one I was most looking forward to.

Ditko's work of that era is always worth a look, and this is a nicer and more varied sampling than the other recent books have provided. About half of the stories hadn't been reprinted before, and even among the others the reprints aren't always easy to find (books published by Eclipse or Robin Snyder in the 1980s). I have them, but then, I'm probably insane...

I've listed all the contents below. I'm going to try to try to spread out the reading of this rather than taking the whole thing at once, and will add a few comments on each story as I read them.

The cover is actually from a 1960s fanzine, not a Charlton comic, although it's very much in the spirit of his covers there, with a classic sci-fi theme, ray-gun wielding hero, dangerous beasties and a fanciful background. Fun stuff, and it looks really nice in colour (I assume it was black and white in the original, as it was in the prior reprint where I first saw it).

"Avery and the Goblins" from THE THING #13 (Apr 1954) - Among Ditko's earliest stories, maybe a dozen stories into his career, already showing most of his distinctive touches. This is a clever haunted house stories that gives him a chance to do some heavily moody work evocative of one of his influences, Will Eisner. Heavy shadows, lots of smoke effects. I especially liked what he did with some of the goblin's doors, which show the same design sense he would refine a decade later in Doctor Strange.

"The Payoff" from STRANGE SUSPENSE STORIES #20 (Aug 1954) - One of the reasons I prefer this book to the Vanguard book is that it gives a wider range of the genres Ditko did in that era, rather than just the sci-fi/fantasy. This is a spy thriller set in Eastern Europe back in the early days of the Cold War, about a female spy trying to sell a smuggled vial of a deadly plague. Very smart and swift story, still very early but you could see the Ditko hands developing.

"Von Mohl Vs. The Ants" from STRANGE SUSPENSE STORIES #20 (Aug 1954) - A story about an ant invasion of a plantation in Africa, and how one greedy landowner tries to turn it back. Oddly, one of the few short stories I remember reading in junior high was about the same thing, and while I don't remember it clearly, I suspect that vast tracts of this story are lifted from it. Either that or maybe ants attacking plantations was a common theme in pulp fiction. Anyway, insects are a Ditko specialty, so he does well with them here even if they aren't of the giant variety, and an overall nice sense of place on an exotic locale.

"What Happened" from OUT OF THIS WORLD #3 (Mar 1957)

"The Supermen" from OUT OF THIS WORLD #3 (Mar 1957) - An old favourite of mine from previous reprints, this is a story about some scientists who begin to mutate to an advanced mental state thanks to a radiation leak. One of the better surprise endings of these kind of stories, and a few very uniquely Ditko storytelling tricks along the way. Plus any story where people mutate to big-headed geniuses is worth having.

"They Didn't Believe Him" from MYSTERIES OF UNKNOWN WORLDS #3 (Apr 1957)

"A Forgotten World" from MYSTERIES OF UNKNOWN WORLDS #3 (Apr 1957) - Kind of an oddly written story. It's about a man who wanders into an underground civilization that's extremely hot, and winds up under a death sentence. Seems to be going somewhere but then has a disappointingly abrupt final page ending. Nice art, including one of those Ditko women with the odd hair. By the way, I love the title lettering on some of these stories. I wonder if Ditko did that himself or there was someone at Charlton was good at those. The actual story lettering is usually solid but unspectacular at this point (before their "A. Machine" era).

"The Man Who Could See Tomorrow" from UNUSUAL TALES #7 (May 1957) - This story is missing a page, unfortunately. It's pretty easy to extrapolate what happens in the missing page, and I'll see if I can get a copy of that page. Anyway, this is another of those short fantasy stories that are more about the technique that Ditko employs, with a lot of very evocative looks at the eyes of the lead character in some extreme closeups.

"The Man Who Painted on Air" from UNUSUAL TALES #7 (May 1957) - Amusing little story about a down-and-out promoter who finds an artist capable of making paintings in the air before him, which quickly dissolve. The promoter decides he can exploit this and plans a major show to which he invites all sorts of national leaders, before suspecting that something might not be kosher. Gives Ditko a good chance to draw some unusual situations and angles, and kind of has a plot that foreshadows something in an early SPIDER-MAN.

"The Flying Dutchman" from OUT OF THIS WORLD #4 (Jun 1957)

"Director of the Board" from STRANGE SUSPENSE STORIES #33 (Aug 1957)

"The Mirage" from MYSTERIES OF UNKNOWN WORLDS #5 (Oct 1957) - A clever little jail-break story about an escapee who has to cross a vast desert to get away. There's some nice writing in here, and Ditko's art reinforces the theme of this convicts determination to be different from other failed escapees, and how that leads to his eventual downfall.

"All Those Eyes" from OUT OF THIS WORLD #6 (Nov 1957)

"The Man Below" from TALES OF THE MYSTERIOUS TRAVELER #5 (Nov 1957)

"Above the Topmost Peak" from TALES OF THE MYSTERIOUS TRAVELER #5 (Nov 1957) - An interesting short about a mountain climber, with a kind of predictable but well done ending. The most interesting thing in this tale is the use of the "Mysterious Traveler" narrator. In his book he's always around in the background of a few panels, sometimes in interstitial linking panels, but in this story for some reason he's this giant head floating in the background of every single panel, making for a very visually arresting story out of one that otherwise would have been routine.

"The Sultan" from TALES OF THE MYSTERIOUS TRAVELER #5 (Nov 1957)

"Night of the Red Snow" from UNUSUAL TALES #9 (Nov 1957)

"Free" from STRANGE SUSPENSE STORIES #35 (Dec 1957) - Odd 3-page short notable for a different art technique, a detailed stippling pattern used for the shading on the underwater scenes. There are a few times he would use such a look in his later work, but not much. It's always interesting when Ditko experiments with techniques, like his later ink-wash work.

"The Strange Fate of Captain Fenton" from MYSTERIES OF UNKNOWN WORLDS #6 (Dec 1957) - Adventures out at sea, which are always fun. I love the way Ditko draws boats. This features a cruel captain who eventually faces karmic justice from an unexpected direction when his ship capsizes and (abandoning his men) he winds up among a tribe on a Pacific island, apparently fulfilling a prophecy.

"Mister Evriman" from TALES OF THE MYSTERIOUS TRAVELER #6 (Dec 1957) - Unfortunately missing a page in the middle, although not one crucial to the story (the page numbering is changed, too, which makes me think this was edited in a prior reprint). This story is about TV quiz shows, very much a product of its time when TV was sort of between the big new thing and a taken-for-granted part of everyday life in the US. Ditko got a chance to draw some interesting faces in this one as part of the plot.

"When Old Doc Died" from TALES OF THE MYSTERIOUS TRAVELER #6 (Dec 1957) - Another one of my old favourites, this tells the story of a small town doctor and what happens when he goes up to heaven and beyond. I especially like how Ditko varies the linework during various parts of the story for the different settings, and there's a clever story that Ditko is able to fully realize, as a lot of this story depends on some facial expressions.

"The Old Fool" from TALES OF THE MYSTERIOUS TRAVELER #6 (Dec. 1957) - Another old favourite from a prior collection, and good thing too because this version is missing the final page. Frustrating, to be sure. Anyway, this is a vignette about a strange old hermit living in a small town, and how the Mysterious Traveler reveals his secret to us. An oddly touching story.

"Tomorrow's Punishment" from TALES OF THE MYSTERIOUS TRAVELER #6 (Dec 1957) - Mystic objects abound in stories of this era, and this is a good example, with a mirror that tells the future. Great bit in the opening where a thief buys the mirror, with some other odd objects in the antique shop, the kind of stuff Ditko does so well. Anyway, the thief uses the mirror to decide which jobs he and his men will succeed in, but of course as happens in these things eventually greed and arrogance collide and it all comes to a bad end. Some very clever visual bits which bring to mind another story involving mirrors that Ditko would do later, but much more proficiently.

"Mystery Planet" from STRANGE SUSPENSE STORIES #36 (Mar 1958)

"The End of Edward" from TALES OF THE MYSTERIOUS TRAVELER #9 (Sep 1958)

"The Shining Stallion" from BLACK FURY #17 (Jan 1959) - Ditko did relatively few westerns in his career, maybe a dozen stories, under 100 pages. A shame as his style really does seem to fit the material, so it's always good to see one of those few examples in a reprint. This particular story features the title character, Black Fury, an untamed stallion out on the western trail who carried a book from a surprisingly long time. In this story, an outlaw tries to capture him in a fenced off corral, but of course he escapes. Fun stories in small doses, I'm not really sure how the book lasted a dozen years except for the usual, y'know, it's Charlton.

"The Great Escape" from SPACE ADVENTURES #27 (Feb 1959)

"With the Help of Hogar" from FANTASTIC GIANTS (Sep 1966) - A great later story, also the longest story in the book at 10 pages, this is a nice one to finish the book with as an example of the definitive form Ditko's work took in his most prolific period following those early years of development with a similar type of story. This is the story of a meteor that lands in Africa, which an evil and ambitious witch-doctor forms into a giant monster which comes to life thanks to a mix of radiation and lightning. Interestingly this is written entirely in captions, so there are no bubbles covering the artwork, which shows of some of Ditko's strengths even more than most.

Marvel Visionaries - Steve Ditko

I'm a big fan of the Ditko, and 340+ oversized pages of his worst work at Marvel would still be worth having, so MARVEL VISIONARIES - STEVE DITKO is definitely my kind of book. So while I'll complain about some things, that all pales next to how good it is to have.

The book opens up with a selection of 10 short stories from the fantasy books that dominated Ditko's first few years at Marvel.

TALES TO ASTONISH #26 - "Dream World"
AMAZING ADULT FANTASY #7 - "Why Won't They Believe Me?"
AMAZING ADULT FANTASY #7 - "Journey's End"
STRANGE TALES #94 - "Help!"
AMAZING ADULT FANTASY #10 - "Those Who Change"
AMAZING ADULT FANTASY #10 - "No Sign Of Life"
AMAZING ADULT FANTASY #12 - "Something Fantastic"
STRANGE TALES #97 - "Goodbye to Linda Brown"
AMAZING ADULT FANTASY #13 - "The Unsuspecting"
TALES TO ASTONISH #42 - "I Am Not Human!"

While a good set of stories that show off a few different facets of Ditko's style and his storytelling strengths, it's really a limited selection. Nine of the ten stories were published in a seven month period beginning December 1961, and one even later. That means Ditko's entire brief first stint at Marvel and the first three years of his second stint are absent, the first 800 pages he drew for Marvel. That's a shame, as there's even more variety and skill in his work of that era than these stories show (the one reprint of his first stint I've seen has some really detailed backgrounds that you rarely see outside of a few of his 1960s stories for Warren).

That said, the stories that are here are well worth having, and a few of them were new to me. It's especially interesting how Ditko's visual imagination shines in stories like "Dream World", which is just about a guy waking up over and over, or "Help!", which is mostly about a guy talking on the phone (and which also has my favourite of the splash pages on these stories).

Hopefully at some point we'll see more of these stories collected, with a wider range of material (apparently he did a few westerns as well). I'd also have included a few random covers.

The rest of the book is all super-heroes, of course, with a big section of the 1960s work.

AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #1 - "Spider-Man Vs. The Chameleon"
INCREDIBLE HULK #6 - "The Metal Master"
STRANGE TALES #110 - "Dr. Strange"
STRANGE TALES #115 - "Origin of Dr. Strange"
TALES OF SUSPENSE #48 - "The Mysterious Mister Doll"
AMAZING SPIDER-MAN ANNUAL #1 - "The Sinister Six"
AMAZING SPIDER-MAN ANNUAL #1 - "How Stan and Steve Create Spider-Man"
STRANGE TALES #126 - "The Domain of the Dread Dormammu"
STRANGE TALES #127 - "Duel with the Dread Dormammu"
AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #31 - "If This Be My Destiny"
AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #32 - "Man on a Rampage!"
AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #33 - "The Final Chapter"
STRANGE TALES #146 - "The End - At Last"

Can't really fault the choice, although a few personal favourites are missing (SPIDEY #18 is my pick for the peak of the series, and the Doc Strange story from ST #121, "Witchcraft in the Wax Museum" is a thing of beauty), I can't really see losing something like the Sinister Six or the Master Planner story, and they're all available in a few other formats now, anyway.

The book finishes with four selections of Ditko's later Marvel work.

DAREDEVIL #162 - "Requiem for a Pug"
HULK #249 - "Jack Frost Nipping at Your Soul"
SPEEDBALL #1 - "Origin of a Masked Marvel"
MARVEL SUPER-HEROES SPECIAL #8 - "The Coming of Squirrel Girl"

"Squirrel Girl" (an Iron Man story) was actually one of the few stories in here that was new to me. For the most part I kind of wish it had continued to elude me. Other than that it's not a bad selection, especially since about half of Ditko's work for Marvel in that era was licensed stuff that they probably couldn't include (a shame, as some of the ROM and MICRONAUTS stories were fun), but it's still the weakest section of the book by far. The DD story was just dumb, and Hulk story had sub-plots from that era so it doesn't stand alone well. For the Speedball story, I'd have preferred one not (over)-inked by Jackson Guice. While there's an occasional nice Ditko flourish in the art, I would definitely not have complained if any of these stories were dumped in favour of 3 or 4 1950s stories.

Always interesting to see some samples of Ditko's pencils. Especially how the villain in his final issue of Spider-Man (issue mislabelled on the caption. I think I've caught at least one typo or production error in the last dozen Marvel books I've bought. Seriously people, take a few minutes to proofread) was re-designed when inked, which I don't recall hearing mentioned before in any discussion of Ditko leaving Marvel.

Good book well worth picking up, although it could easily have been better. I also have to say, if you're going to make a book oversized, would it kill you to add a bit of margin down in the spine so readers can see an entire page flat?

STEVE DITKO: SPACE WARS

2005 is shaping up to be a good year for fans of vintage Steve Ditko art. Upcoming in the next few months are the third volume of Pure Imagination's STEVE DITKO READER series and first volume of MARVEL VISIONARIES: STEVE DITKO. Those will go along with the just released STEVE DITKO: SPACE WARS from Vanguard, a collection of 21 science fiction stories published by Charlton from 1954 to 1961, along with several covers.

Unfortunately about half the contents of this book duplicate stories that already appeared in the first two DITKO READER volumes, so there wasn't as much new to me as there could have been. It's a shame, with so much Ditko work that hasn't been seen in decades to have that much duplication in volumes released so close together and so similar in format. There was enough previously unreprinted artwork to make it worth picking up, and if you don't have the READER volumes yet it's great (I recommend you get the READER volumes first, as they have a wider variety of work, with a lot of fantasy, general sci-fi and western stories as well as the space opera types in here).

Among the interesting contents is the story "The Blue Men of Bantro", which features a comic book artist as a character. Doesn't appear Ditko modeled the character after himself, but he does have Captain Atom and the Mysterious traveler among the art on his wall.

One of the oddest stories is the latest, "Way Out, Man" from 1961. I'm not sure if the story makes much sense, but it involves Stanley, a total square, and his beatnik girlfriend Gigi. Then it gets weird, with Martian friends of Stanley helping him to adopt a beatnik lifestyle to better satisfy Gigi. Great artwork by Ditko in this one, very creative and at times surreal. Ditko doing straight humour is kind of rare, but a pleasure when he does. He uses a really odd exaggerated style with the design and movement of his characters that just cracks me up, and this particular story gives him a lot of material.

More fun in "The Enchanted Planet", where it's interesting to see how much of an influence of the EC stable shows in the early Ditko work (it can also be seen in many of the covers printed in here). It's a very fun and dynamic story full of classic sci-fi adventure elements (as well as, maybe, the source for the hair of a certain 1970s sci-fi movie icon. Or maybe not).

One complaint is the random order of the stories. The introduction has a list in the order they should be, but doesn't give a good reason for not printing them in that order. So the earliest story, the only 1954 story included, is in the middle of the book, and so is the latest. I could understand it if they had some sort of thematic grouping, but it seems truly random.

I also didn't understand the need for almost two dozen "title pages" in front of most of the stories, with the name of the book and enlarged reproductions of individual panels. Those were also random, usually but not always taken from the next story. A waste of pages that could have been filled with three or four other stories. It might have made sense if they had better source material so the enlarged panels actually showed more details (a few of the stories are obviously taken from printed comics, most of them look a bit better, maybe taken from original stats), but they really didn't.

Still a nice book, definitely worth a look for the Ditko fan.