Mr. A By Steve Ditko 

There was definitely more to it than that. Alan Moore admits that Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby did all the work and Stan Lee would fill in speech bubbles. He also changed the characters Steve Ditko created and ostracized him for his beliefs. Jack Kirby who he also used as a work horse had a more similar ideology to Stan Lee, so he at-least got to keep his philosophy in his work. The comic book scene was very liberal even for todays standards, I’ve seen professors do the same thing to students. It was so obvious that even Alan Moore, a man directly opposed to Ditko in every way imaginable felt sympathy for him.

Mr. A. wouldn't stamp on his fingers. He would just walk away and let them fall. That is how his first appearance and his last appearance ended. A recurring theme in Ditko's independent work is the protagonist walking away, leaving the antagonist in a position from which there is no escape. I think that its his way of saying "When evil is ready to destroy itself, let it."

still better than SJW characters

@@savagetv6460 What is the definition of a SJW character?

@@Grogeous_Maximus characters who's sole purpose is peddle progressive politics

@Mikhail G yeah pretty much look at the new ms.marvel or iron heart or the new hulk or lady thor

@Mikhail G that's ironic, considering that ditko planed the character to be a serious represention of this philosofy

@@pedrovieira-ri7lk And Moore for as much as he makes Rosarch out to be a bad guy is still a hero.

Right? "Never compromise... even in the face of Armageddon." *gets vaporized cuz he's just some guy

@@logancox6548 The Problem Moore faced was that he tried to make fun of Mr.A's objectivism by showing how when the chips are down you're forced to compromise Wich is the very moment when Objectivism shines. The discredits ppl could make to Mr.A is that he was so extreme on relatively petty situations, Alan Moore accidentally portrayed him in the opposite case. Moore placed him at the point where the choice were his principles or his life and he chose to stay true to what he believed. Night owl went and had his fun as a superhero but in the eyes of the audience this is not virtuous, he gets to go and have fun on the backs of millions of people killed and a new world order created by lies? At the end of the day the problem was that in order to make Rorschar a suitable punching bag for Objectivism, Moore needed to keep him a true objectivist, because if he didn't then people could argue that wasn't the real thing and Moore was just making up strawmen, something he was too savvy to fall into. So he made him a hobo, he looks dirty and ragged in comparison to other characters, he has little in the way of power or even true deductive skills (He goes the whole comic wondering things and rarely ever making any meaningful connections when not aided by night owl) He doesn't have the money or a support system (Implying that he is so unlikable he repels anyone around him), He makes comments that border on being racists and talks misoginistically in the interview with the psychologist. Hell, he never wins any of his actual fights outside of roughing up bar attendees and jumping at an old man from a freezer. Ozymandias DISMANTLES HIM. But at the end of the day, when the chips are down, the virtues inherent to the ideology shine trough, he's the only one that acts heroically at the end. Everyone, even manhattan is acting out of cowardice, or submission to Ozymandia's scheme. And I think even Moore recognized this at the end,to some degree, when Rorscharc's diary arrives at the newspaper office, in Moore's mind perhaps it was to be a condemnation of Mr.A's doggedness to fight for what they perceived as "true". If Rorschar diaries were publicated, that would mean that all the sacrifices killed for Ozymandia's plans would be bust. The world would be plunged back into cold war escalation and Rorschar would effectively have sentenced the planet to death by choosing to pursue his "Truth" But I think this is also Moore's slip, because it puts into perspective that a peace brought about by lies, is inherently flimsy and at best only a half measure. If the world could be plunged back into danger by a single hobo sending a letter, was Ozymandia's plan ever sucesfull? Were those crimes done in the name of utilitarianism really necessary? Aren't those who cowed and lowered their heads and went along with this plan because it was a noble lie, a lesser evil now equally as guilty as Ozymandias hand that killed millions?

​@@dakota4384Roarshack literally was willing to put the world in all chaos just fir hus philosophy

I believe Ditko explicitly forbade such a thing. Lol

@@sirmount2636 When?

I don't remember. But I did read that he never wanted a Mr. A omnibus. Regardless, I believe the copyright is in the hands of Robin Snyder now, so we may see an omnibus yet!

Dear lord I hope not. Let's hope Mr. A stays buried.

@@sirmount2636 I seem to remember this too. There was an interview given after his death by a relative of his addressing the possibility of collecting some of his stories for commercial availability. The relative’s stance was that they knew Steve would object to it if he were here, but that it was still being considered anyway A quick Google search and I found exactly what I was thinking about: bleedingcool.com/comics/steve-ditkos-mr-a-collection/

The problem in some of the Mister A stories is that there was no editor there to say, "Steve, including philosophy is fine if you want, but you still have to keep the story moving!" Ditko was long enough a pro to know this, of course, but he undoubtedly decided it was more important to be clear on his text than to serve the dramatic sensibilities of his stories at times. Of course, this varies greatly by story. Some are much tighter written, and others are really stories at all, with Mister A merely serving as an illustrated example for a philosophy essay. So I guess it really depends on the story.

I bet you love sjw marvel and cheered diversity stories

Black Knight lol triggered conservatives are hilarious lmao

@@notmyname5591 my point still stands, it's ironic seeing leftists call ditko preachy while championing modern marvel which is just as preachy

@@savagetv6460 You're creating hypocrisy where there is none. You had no reason to believe that they liked other preachy comics, and just assumed it so you could manufacture an enemy and have something to fight over. That's stupid.

That...that is a stellar idea.

I would guess Ditko likely left the rights to his creator owned material to Robin Snyder, who published a bunch of Ditko's material. That's presuming Ditko had a last will and testament. Otherwise, I guess this material would become public domain? I am quite unsure.

Steve Koller - 🤔 that is intriguing.

Ooh! That'd kick ass!

Imagine a scenario:, The Question, an objectivist hero who doesn't let the philosophy blind him, fighting a man who's whole reason for being a hero, IS his philosophy. Mr. A would see Question as evil for the light way he uses objectivism in his heroics, and would go MAD. For example, as a light way to start off, Mr. A chases a thief to the edge of a building, causing him to fall and grab onto the ledge. As he leaves The Question would swoop in and save the man, stating that while he is a criminal, he deserves fair trial, instead of outright death. I'm very high right now, so this is as much as I could think of. Everyone feel free to continue this, because I would really love to read other ideas and scenarios

Ditto. It's the only character Ditko created that *might* give some insight into the creator himself.

Probably because you feel like a psychiatrist trying to understand the mind of a serial killer

@@DeadlyAlienInvader Nice character assassination there. Classy!

No One okay, maybe I went a bit far with the “serial killer” part.

No One also, just to clarify, when I said serial killer, I wasn’t referring to Steve Ditko but, to his character, Mr. A-which probably doesn’t make my comment better but, I feel like I need to point that out in case if you thought otherwise.

Sure, all the villains in Mr. A are one-note greedy jealous cowards, but criminals in real life aren’t like that 99% of the time. The way Mr. A creates a strict moral dichotomy between good and evil and adheres to literal black and white philosophy is antithetical to reducing crime, and while not fascist, can be easily paired with fascist thinking

I think Ditko misinterpreted what Good and Evil means when it involves Rand's Philosophy of man's morality; it is ridiculous to think that such binary morality wholly dictates man. For it fundamentally contradicts Objectivist Philosophy in regards to Free Will. If man was born Good or Evil, then he would have no concept nor the idea to comprehend what such concepts as Good or Evil are. For he would be a robot. Free Will means that man is born undecided, free to learn and understand, to choose and to decide their own morality. If man can choose to be Evil then he can also choose to be Good as well, for his Free Will would allow him to be fix his flaws to better himself if he so chose.

@@ianmaluk1 Do you mean metaphysical libertarianism (ml) or metaphysical compatiblism (mc) in the moral sense? Because Ditko does get Rand, but Ayn Rand herself tries to have both concepts at once. This is impossible because the former is in the moral sense, very black and white with no exceptions, making it lean toward moral absolutism. All the while the latter is morally gray in that there are exceptions to be made, making it lean toward ethical naturalism. ML would fall in line with a very rigid deontological or rule consequentialist stance in normative ethics, while MC would be a loose act consequentialist or inbetween virtue ethicist stance. Rand I feel is rule consequentialist, but for her to take the position of ML, she would have to accept that either free will is possible to exist without the body and continue with the soul, or she would have to believe that free will is related to the random motions of sub-atomic particles in quantum mechanics. Although, if she were to take a MC position, she would have to reject moral absolutism and claim that for free will to be compatible with the natural world as well as ethics, she would have to provide empirical data, as that is going into the slippery slope of ethics as a natural occurring phenomenon. The only other solution would be to adopt a non-naturalist solution to ethics and compatiblism, and accept that ethics are like math mathematical facts. But then she would have to take exceptions to her ethics, thus making compromises. As with Mr. A, he makes no compromises at all, so thus Ditko is not misreading Ayn Rand, he is reading her correctly, however, he failed to see the flaws of her arguments as he never bothered to engage philosophers who have long refuted Ayn Rand.

That's one of the reasons that Mr. A comes off as way too "holier than thou" for me. He's this paragon that goes around punishing people (except not really, he'll beat people up and hurt them, but they always die by their own actions, rather convenient that Mr. A never kills anyone, but never saves them from dying either. He'll beat the hell out of people, but to maintain his moral high ground, never kills anyone) like he's the sole arbiter of morality fighting against an unjust world, and it's his duty to dole out righteous justice - but he does it so callously that even if he's right you don't want to agree with him, which is a terrible way to convince people to conform to a philosoph. Yes, viewing the world as unjust and immoral due to "grey-area" compromises is a cornerstone of Mr. A's characterization, and yes, it could be argued that people who don't agree with Mr. A "lack moral fiber to do what needs to be done to those who commit evil acts", but it's my personal belief that if you're going to go do good in the world, you accomplish that by elevating and rehabilitating those who can't see the error of their ways. Although it could be argued that his victims "already made their choice" when they committed immoral acts, and that was what damns them in the eyes of Mr. A, by being written in a way that doesn't allow for criminals to do anthing but suffer and die even after they regret their actions, it most certainly gets repetitive as a story. Especially since Mr. A believes that committing evil and immoral acts will lead to your own inevitable demise, it begs the question: why does Mr. A need to exist? If his opponents are going to wind up destroying themselves anyway by their own devices, what exactly is he doing pursuing those who he believes need to be punished? It just comes across as preachy and condescending. And you should absolutely live life in a moral and upright fashion, it's great life advice, but bad entertainment.

@@musicandmagic909 I could not agree with you more. When I first heard of Mr. A in the early 2000's I wanted to read it so badly because it sounded like Mr. A was similar to the Green Hornet. It took me years to find a single issue in a shop here in Texas. Then I found one around 2012, and I was bored to tears. I felt the hoopla that writers like Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman put around Mr. A was too kind. It was preachy, it had no point to why Mr. A exists, and I feel Ditko's beliefs were drowned out by the condescending nature of it all. Others may disagree with me, and that's fine, but Dr. Strange is the most perfect creation of Ditko's. Strange was well-rounded in his creation, and found purpose in his existence. I just wish Ditko could've given us more Strange. He definitely quit Marvel way too soon. And I understand why he did. Hell, I probably would've too under those circumstances, but nonetheless it is a shame.

@@ianmaluk1 Exactly. Now all we need is a time machine so you can go back in time, meet Steve Ditko, and tell that too him so he can make Mr. A better. :)

Yet Mr A is more realistic than a Chic Tract

I like them both. Chick is underrated. Able to draw in both a cartoony and an almost photo-real style.

I didn't know Mr A was on Twitter so much

Mr A sounds based and you sound like the kind of people who would commit horrible crimes only to run from him 😂

...criminals??

That's EVERY action hero vigilante.

😅

That's not a bad idea. :)

2+2 doesn't equal 4 in my case. Since you couldn't see the external hidden fiscal +1,mental -3 circumstances of the number 2. My point being, involvement of external factors, doesn't mean that it's subjective now, it means the equation has changed.

You are pointing the big criticism on Rand’s pseudo philosophy: moral objectivism is clear as water if you are an educated and functional individual within society so you must acknowledge your “superiority” - like, well, you were born privileged so maintain your moral superiority above those amoral apes who are born into poverty, exploitation, colonialism, etc. Why Ditko became and adept of it, I don’t know, but could have been a little bit more critical of Rand.

I'm late to the party, but the "nobody talks like that" in Mr.A's case doesn't work. The thing is, the characters in Mr.A are incarnation of thoughts we can have in our minds, it's like our justifications for doing wrong were unmasked to show that stereotype "hehe I'm just Evil guys", without the fluff we all put to that "It was rainy so I didn't went to the gym" or "I mean he's rich, steling from him won't hurt him, it's not like he's not gonna eat at the end of the month" so they seem virtuous or acceptable.

Mr A is a concept. He stands for the logical conclusion of superhero vigilantism if you would apply justification. He sometimes kills criminals and sometimes the criminals are their own undoing and he doesnt help them. Know the difference. Batman isn't so much different in the movies. He kills bad guys left and right and no one bats an eye as the joker would say.

@@NoOne-uh9vu Batman does not kill, it would be stupid for him to do so and any director who thinks they have done some kind of interesting subversion of his character by making him kill does not understand anything about what the character actually is supposed to be

What I was doing with my blog was reviewing all the marvel movies since 2008 but it became a drag just over halfway through, there are many movies.

Everyone liked Rorschach

Hope the article turned out well. One thing about Alan Moore's Watchmen is that he is merely saying no one should ever declare themselves the savior of humanity, for that breeds authoritarianism. That which he see superheroes as: human beings with a savior complex. I only find fault in Watchmen in that Moore didn't give an opened ended resolution so that other writers could respond to his work.

@@savagetv6460 I don't think y'all understand Rorschach as a criticism of the near-fascistic behavior of Mr. A, Batman, and Iron Man who have a savior complex.

The irony is that people scoff at Ditko's neo-Aristotlean Objectivism and call him "simplistic" and crazy, yet anarchic-socialist Alan Moore is called a genius while worshipping his serpent god and writing child pornography. Give me Mr. A over non-DC Alan Moore any day.

Normie.

Unbiased?? 😂 the guy was completely trashing Ditko halfway thru the video! What are you talking about? He was clearly butthurt by Ditko’s opinions. This guy had radicalized leftist all over the second half of the video. If you’re gonna give praise, at least be HALF true and not a full blown lie. 😂

@@koldemperor8474 Can’t handle someone talking trash about forgotten irrelevant superhero huh

Thank you, sir! Mr. A is definitely a character with a unique perspective.

Rorschach is literally a parody of Mr. A meant to show how dumb and insane his beliefs are

@@k_anth And yet Rorschach was the only chapter who was not a pussy. The only one who saw that what was happening was wrong and did not play along. Seems to me that he was the only one not insane.

Name one aspect of Objectivism to which you object. It's an excellent philosophy.

@@CerealKiller Clearly, you're not real. You're a meme.

I can imagine Ditko rage quitting after getting dog-piled on by philosophy majors!

@@CosmoShidan He lived into 2018, he would have known what it was. I doubt he'd be dogpiled by people with a near worthless degree.

@@dakota4384 Philosophy degrees are for employment in Law, Nonprofits, Libraries, Museums, Teaching, Journalism, Public Relations, Art, Architecture and Nursing. Ditko's philosophy is nothing but fraud, and thereby horseshit.

@@CosmoShidan I like how your idea of empowerment is having multiple people of your desired philosophy teaming up against one man to defeat him. Show how much of a coward you really are. You are terrified of a fair fight.

@@gaiseric9518 So you mean to tell me that we should allow a white supremacist ideology like objectivism and its advocates to be platformed? I think not, for an ideology that is classist and racist, it can rot in a shithole.

Quite simply, I thought I could do a better job than I had previously.

Mr. A is like a police officer brutalizing and killing person of color who's loyalty lies in protecting money. In short, he's a law and order type on the brink of becoming a fascist.

@@CosmoShidan Tell me you've never read Mr. A without saying "I've never read Mr. A."

@@RockandrollNegro Tell me you've actually read a philosophy text without reading philosophy.

@@RockandrollNegroi’m tryna wrap my head around objectivism but i find it so confusing

Not from any modern day film maker.

All he did was say his mind loser

Off subject: I was unable to locate that Swamp Thing 100-page mag. Sorry sir! I really like Mr A's artwork style*

@@gregorblack5557 not quiet time for it yet...around the end of this month👍

Excellent. I'll be on the look out + looks like a new WW & The Flash (seperate) are coming soon as well. JL might be ending however (Wal-Mart wise)

@@gregorblack5557 it's out now, picked up my copy last night. And don't forget, this is an ongoing monthly series now.

I saw that. Super cool! *hoping it's not New52 ST & Animal Man because I have them already Flash & WW catch my eye! :) thanks Edward & lmk if it's New52 please

It only sounds like droning if you refuse to listen.

@@_Iscream I think I digested the point lol

You're mistaken about Atlas Shrug's "smugly droning" : their speech (and actions) show insight and standing up for their values with integrity and reflect opposing the regime that tries violating their liberty.

More like the sociopathy of Ayn Rand.

"I got mine - fuck you"

@@funkyweapon1981 butt hurt collectivists detected

Yeah he predicted all of it

Just because he has a philosophy different from a character he created doesn't mean he didnt create the character. He was the sole creator of Dr. Strange and yet that character lacks any other objectivist philosophy he had irl. The truth is that Ditko kept for the most part his beliefs out of comics, only including them when asked or if it was indie work.

@@dakota4384 Dude, Ditko WASN’T the sole creator of Dr Strange. It was a Stan Lee Steve Ditko collaboration. And while I agree that the author can have a different philosophy to the character, Steve Ditko usually tried to put as much of his own philosophy as he could allow into the characters. The Question, Hawk and Dove, and Mr A are all examples of this and they read drastically different from characters he collaborated on like Dr Strange or Spider-Man.

@@thedukeofchutney468 No, Strange is as testimony from several at the time entirely a Ditko creation.

@@thedukeofchutney468 As well, The Question, Hawk and Dove were both works that he was told to put his beliefs into by higher ups, with the og Hawk and Dove being far more than political left and right.

Exactly.

Wouldn't someone making a video with a bias for a character be equally as bad as someone with a bias against the character?

That gag was written by John Schwartzwelder, an Ayn Rand devotee.

Ditko's "H" series is just as much about his moral and philosophical beliefs as "Mr. A." is. It just emphasizes different parts of his world view.

Ditko's Mr A work is nothing but classical liberal trite that hinges in the brink of fascism.

@@CosmoShidan A philosophy dedicated to the protection of individual rights is on 'the brink of fascism?" Right, sure it is [/sarc]. Besides, if it's so 'trite", why are so many people so insanely bothered by it, like you? Just give it a rest and ignore it already. A dead comic book creator can't do you any harm, can they? Silly comments like this tell us far more about *you* than they do about Ditko or Mr. A.

@@macsnafu Because Objectivism is the current ideology of the Republican party of America, and it has gone full-blown fascist while the Democrats are next. The same ideology that Ditko's character advocates for, and is best it stays buried. And it's on the brink of fascism because Mr. A labels anyone who doesn't fit into his morally superior position is the enemy, ergo becomes "the other" to Mr. A's "self". Liberals do this sort of thing when they claim that someone who infringes on rights should be punished or rehabilitated (brainwashed) rather than creating a restorative relationship between victim and convicted. This goes to show that Alan Moore is probably right that superheroes are right-wing.

@@CosmoShidan And now I know you're delusional. There's practically nothing Objectivist about the Republican Party, especially with the populist Trump as president. If they were anywhere near Objectivist, Rand Paul would have gotten the Republican nomination, not Trump. Trump and Mr. A have nothing in common in their views. I might agree that, traditionally, superheroes tended to be right-wing, as they were primarily there to protect the status quo, but modern comics are far past the very minimal political influence of traditional Silver Age or even the Bronze Age of comics. And Alan Moore's own Watchmen proves it, as Ozymandias sought to create a new status quo instead of protecting the existing status quo.

I don't think anyone else caught it. Good job!

You belong on Reddit with the other normies.

@@nordicwarrior5014 I love you

@@ataraxia7439 You don't know what love is.

@@nordicwarrior5014 nonsense habibi

Humans created good and evil. It’s a system we decided to use to sustain a stabilized society and it held us together for thousands of years. Those who tell us to reject this logical system seek only to manipulate those with mental illness as pawns. Hence the rioters who burn down businesses owned by innocent people so they can pretend revolutionary.

@smileysuburban8146 He reminds me Of Ditko's Stardust The Super Wizard,as in a morally grey at best 'character' Who is a Gary Stu and The Writer (Steve Ditko & Fletcher Hanks) views as the ultimate,supreme,ideal godly hero who is Downright Evil at worst.

Creator is a liberal and afraid of philosophies that contradict his own, so he creates straw man fallacies to cope with his own cowardice and play pretend hero If he does see my response he will state that I am “projecting” because he has no way to refute what I am saying and that is what his political class tells him to say.

If criticizing a character is disrespectful, then you simply have no skin loser

Superheroes have dealt with social injustices going all the way back to Superman in 1938 all the way to the 60s, 70s and today. Otherwise I have to assume your opposition to the cries of the unheard are somewhere along the lines of classical liberalism and on the brink of fascism. Or simply put, edgelord.

@@CosmoShidan social justice is not justice. It was simply righting wrongs. It's ironic that you suddenly ignore the countless comics that you progressives called racist and sexist lol secondly I am right wing, but I'm also a capitalist. I believe in free expression unlike you and your censorship buddies

@@CosmoShidan Nazis were socialists lol

@@savagetv6460 Right, and Ayn Rand is one too! lol.

@@CosmoShidan Rand wasn't a Nazi lol objectivism is anti Nazi. Nazism is collectivist as shit and objectivism is radical individualism. You're insane

I hear you on that, man. It could turn into an inescapable rabbit hole discussion.