I've always found the way people talk about and treat Steve Ditko to be maddening. "Journalists" would show up to his house or office and demand interviews and just generally invade his privacy like they're entitled to his time. Then, when they don't get what they want, they paint him to be Henry Darger, some weird outcast who died alone and friendless, though that isn't the case at all given how he continued to get work and how many coworkers, like Ann Nocenti, said he was a friendly guy who loved to talk philosophy and politics (despite the two being on opposing ends of the spectrum). I think people project a bunch of stuff on to him because he refused to do the whole media personality song and dance.
Henry Darger had a less crazy philosophy and The Realms of the Unreal is a masterwork of pure driven creativity, for better or worse. Mr. A is simply jerking off with Ayn Rand's disgusting ideas. Both the ultimate statement by both artists, one fanciful, amazing, and that dreams of a better world. The other shrugs and lets a man get struck by a car to die if that man was jaywalking.
Joe Simon , co- creator of Captain America, wrote about meeting with Ditko, saying how he has a good sense of humor. Many others in the comics industry said that they liked working with him & learned a lot from him.
I knocked on his office door in New York in 2012 and he happily spent about 20 minutes speaking with me. I was a complete nobody with no ties to the industry but he happily gave his thoughts about his own career and the comics industry today. I was surprised how laid-back, casual and funny he was. RIP Steve Ditko - A true legend!!!
It think it's worth mentioning that Ditko was very careful not to call himself an Objectivist. Even got frustrated with it, and preferred to call himself a student of Aristotle. ...Though, like you mentioned, Rand did too. And he donated a lot to Objectivist organizations. So, you know. Somewhat splitting hairs. But it makes sense for such a staunch individualist not to define himself by a group, even though he held a whole lot of Objectivist views. And I agree that he was a fascinating artist, especially for his almost contradictory obsessions of individualism and criminal justice. Static in the self-titled series gets asked why he’d help a stranger, and replies “Self-interest! Evil needs victims! After he’s done with you, he’ll come after someone like me!” Which... frames the Spider-man origin a bit differently. If you're interested in his essays, Robin Snyder has been collecting them print-on-demand at amazon under the "Ditko Complains" series.
I did not know that they were available on print-on-demand. Thank you for that! And, yes, I did use a shortcut in referring to Ditko's beliefs. Objectivist is quicker to say than Student Of Objectivism (which I think most prefer) or Student Of Aristotle. Usually I'm a little more pedantic, but sometimes I'm not. :)
"Ditko Complains" might be the best title to an essay collection I ever heard. If he signed off on that, that's hilarious, and nice to know he had some self awareness
@@geraldstephens6612 He was Ditko’s long-time publishing partner all the way back to the Charlton days, and was the person who ran Ditko’s Kickstarters. Ditko gave him permission to publish his works after he passed. As for Mr A, he’s actually put out the first volume in a series collecting it. (Well, okay, the first they put out is labeled volume 2. Because he wanted to publish certain material first. Snyder… does that.) That was in 2021, and a second still hasn’t come out tho. Not sure why they’ve held off on it. And I know Ditko’s nephew has expressed frustration with a lack of updates on the IDW Mr A collection. Edit: just checked the old IDW solicitations, and looks like that edition is produced in tandem with Snyder (which makes sense, as he has the rights). So makes sense why he’d be holding off so much Edit2: okay, wait a second. There was a 2017 solicitation of the Mr A collection when Ditko was alive. He and Snyder worked on it, that was the solicitation I read. Then Snyder said on his Facebook that they decided against moving forward with it. Then IDW reannounces it in 2019 after Ditko died, with his family’s involvement but no sign of Snyder. Snyder even said on Kickstarter that the new edition was “news to us.” Then Snyder puts out a collected Mr. A volume in 2021, while IDW’s been radio silent. Something’s going on over there
It isn't a Strange Body Parts essay if it doesn't contain the words "distinct", "oblique", "thoroughly" and "context", and the phrase "in other words".
"Everyone's always told me that I'm paranoid and need to calm down, but guess what? I'm alive, and everyone who told me that is dead! That's the ultimate proof that someone doesn't know what the hell they're talking about. 'Aliens aren't invading, Freeman. You're just being paranoid.' Bet you wouldn't call me paranoid now if you were still alive!" Freeman's Mind episode 28
Ditko ´s philosophy is so Extreme, it belongs in the 90’s! Thank you, thank you, I will be here all week. There is a level of true on Ditko’s super heroes as ideal men: more often than not, superheroes in comic book are so occupied fighting their own personal demons that protecting the innocent or saving cats out of trees is no longer the focus of their comics. If they get to save somebody is only as a bi product of stopping their evil twin-clone doppelgänger-radioactive sister in law… great video as always!
@@jranimations5955 You are right! I´m an AI generated commenter machine trying to boost this channel so my twin-clone doppelgänger-radioactive sister in law´s cooking channel can´t be monetized
I find it hilarious that people call Ditkos philosophy "extreme" yet it's just a "enlightened secularist" version of christianity without metaphysical grounding. So it was the ideal for the last 2000 years that build all of modernity and the secular brand of "enlightenment secularism" was the guiding principle on top of the christian doctrine for the last 200 years. One must be utterly insane to call the branch we are all sitting on "extreme" when it's the bedrock of all of all our humanist achievements and laws in the west. Post modernity has taken such a huge stinking dump inside peoples brains it has literally inverted every single fact of life through cultural and intellectual subversion as well as unspeakable political gaslighting of the public. We have gone into full revisionist history territory for the last 60 years or so to the point people cant critically think or use language correctly anymore
@@robertopulitano8093 i wasn’t trying to be mean, came back to my comment to realize it wasn’t helpful. What I’m trying to say is that there is more to a writer than his work. Sometimes we write about things we disagree with or extremify what is believed. It makes our work more special and interesting than something “normal”. Not saying that a grounded and realistic story can’t be told, it’s just an interesting perspective. There is more to an artist than his work, so if you don’t know him personally or have tried to follow up to his works and made it your mission to critic him in a thoughtful way (and not projecting) then just stick to critiquing his work- not the person.
I understand the core desire to make characters and art as a moral ideal to be strived for, even if my own philosophical and moral compass is pointed in a different direction than Mister Ditko's; I think he has a point, to an extent, that the art and media we consume affects us on an individual and societal level.
@@patrickmoler8025 That would be a core issue I think as well, yes: Your heroes can be the paragon of your values, but if that makes your heroes insufferable, that speaks volumes about your values doesn't it?
@@Groovebot3k It's a matter of how you write your ideals. Mr. A was conceived in line with how Aristotle understood art, but the whole thing came out as preachy and dense precisely because it focused more on teaching you life values instead of telling a compelling story... An objectivist story can work if the protagonist is someone who understands what right and wrong is, but still faces different challenges that tests their ability to stick to their principles, or even finds situations where they don't work as expected and the protagonist must expand on their mindset and reconsider things without dropping their core values. Giving an origin story to Mr. A and flaws he must work through would've made everything more compelling and the lessons more satisfying, after all, The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller was written from an objectivist standpoint and is still considered a masterpiece to this day.
So happy that SBP referenced Masters of Comic Book Art, it's a great documentary! I haven't watched it in years but can thoroughly recommend to any fan of the comic book medium. Along with fantastic Comic Book Confidential, for years these contained the only insights I ever saw from some of the amazing talents still available to talk about the industry! I must now go and watch them again!
It's not to knock Denny O'Neil's take on the character- I wish someone had written The Question for some time with Ditko's original vision in mind. The DCAU did a pretty good job with the character overall.
I have to say, post-Crisis, that was the only new character re-boot I liked. The New DC ('86 onwards) was less interesting and glum by the 90s. The Question and Vertigo Comics were the only bright spots.
As long as he was friendly and not a jerk about his beliefs than I’m glad that he could live how he wanted. No matter if I agree with those beliefs or not.
There's a quote about Objectivism that has become well known for its accuracy: "“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." [Kung Fu Monkey -- Ephemera, blog post, March 19, 2009]”" Of course, this is a commentary on Objectivism itself and not on Steve Ditko.
Speaking as a former objectivist, this quote was one of the final nails in the coffin that had me turn away from objectivism. It's a very heroic philosophy in theory, but when you take it to the conclusions that Ayn Rand had, it can be very harmful.
Exactly. Objectivism doesn't allow growth as it gets you stuck on only you, you and you, especially since it blinds you on only seeing things your own way without questioning them. And to grow, you have to question yourself and your views, and to accept that you're wrong on some things, in order to find better answers. Because while it's okay to question others, if you don't question yourself, you may never see that not all of your answers may not be the right ones and not see the big panorama as the world isn't white or black, but a complex grey world with difficult and complex answers and choices. And once you close yourself, you stop growing. But the thing about life, is that you will never stop growing. And objectivism, is a very infantile way to look at the world. That's why sadly, Ditko ended up alone at the end of his life because he didn't even compromise in the things that didn't matter. Sure, he had his family, a very few friends (which he lost because of his views and attitude) and some fans, but despite that, he was a lonely man. If he had only not chosen objectivism over life itself, he would have gotten more things out of life.
@@ARVETDEGthis is a straight up lie. Him being a reclusive is not the same as having no friends. There are tons of people in the industry he was friends with, and was very close with his family. B
I think the "crazy Steve Ditko" narrative also comes from the fact a lot of his writing is very terse and filled with acronyms. If you arent familiar with the subject matter it can seem like crazy stuff
In my experience it only seems crazy to certain people. Mainly people who subscribe to liberal collectivist ideas, subjectivism and moral relativism. They love to smear Ditko but most of their attacks when questioned expose the real crazy
In reality and in the Objectivist ethics, there is no such thing as “duty.” There is only choice and the full, clear recognition of a principle obscured by the notion of “duty”: the Law of Causality.
Defining absolute good and absolute bad, light and dark, heroism and villainy, is all well and good, but that distinction is always going to be somewhat subjective. Case in point: in Atlas shrugged, the heroes rebel against the evil government by destroying their own industries, and deliberately crashing the economy of the United States. There is absolutely no consideration, given to what happens to the little people. The folks that are not rich. The people who depend on their jobs in order to eat and live indoors. Indeed, there is a scene where railroad workers simply stop their trains get out, and wander into the wilderness. it is admittedly a powerful scene, but how are they going to eat? How are they going to pay rent? How are they going to handle their doctor bills? How are they going to make it home? a larger sense, what about the hundred million or so Americans who only have half a refrigerator full of food? And what happens when the electricity cuts out? Certainly it will, because the economy has been destroyed. There is no money to buy fuel, no fuel to be refined, the heroes have destroyed all that. What are they supposed to do? Hunt? Raid others and steal their food? Cannibalism? The inescapable conclusion of Atlas shrugged Is that millions of people died as a consequence of Dagney’s deliverance sabotaging of the American economy. There is simply no getting around this. Book ends with her and her co-conspirators living in an idyllic valley, cut off from the rest of the world, planning a coup lawfully elected government of the United States. (assuming that even still exist, given the utter economic collapse.) these people deliberately destroyed the economy of the US, and, it’s made clear, the world, and caused the deaths of millions of people and the privation of hundreds of millions of others, because they felt that the United States government was immoral. And what was the immoral sin of the United States government? Welfare, basically. The government made sure everyone was fed. The government tax people in order to provide the basic services that every nation needs in order to be a nation. In essence, the government Was taking care of its citizens, at least to some extent. And since this contradicted Rand’s sense of absolute good and evil, she decided the government had to go. And while she avoids talking about the millions who must have died, her clearly-stated attitude in the book is that all “looters and moochers” bust go. So clearly she’s cool with genocide, so long as she doesn’t have to pay taxes, or at least doesn’t have to pay for the expenses of veterans who, say, got all crippled up in the service of their country. Those people are moochers, and must go. Dagny and company intend to rebuild the US in their own image, which is pretty psychotic from where I sit. Rand would say it’s the principle of the thing. I would say that her principles are fucked up. I myself am as capitalist as capitalist can be, but if your view of ‘right’ is letting children starve so people who are already fantastically wealthy can avoid the social contract and become even richer…. I got news for you, brother: that is not capitalism. And read, “the wealth of nations,” by Adam Smith written in 1776. It is the ur-test of capitalism, and it goes on at considerable length about an employers responsibility to his labor. This is not even expressed in particularly moralistic terms, he simply states that it is inefficient when they are not taken care of, and results in less productivity overall. Rand’s objectivist version of Capitalism is more akin to serfdom. And apparently the will of the people doesn’t matter either.
The more I hear about Ditko and his strongly held beliefs, and how Mr. A and The Question were supposed to represent these beliefs and that was the very core and nexus of their creation, the more frustrated I am by the other author's taking Ditko's creations and purposely thumbing their nose at Ditko's beliefs with them. It seems to me, any respectable creator should respect another's creations enough to at least not destroy their core.
I think the question by Denny o’Neil was more a response to ditko that acknowledged then changed him. Spider-man comics making fun of objectivism are fucking annoying.
@paulakroy2635 but also fair enough, as when Ditko was in charge of the character, Peter really started acting as selfish sociopath which is what said jab references.
The comic industry has a love hate relationship with Ditko, brought on by a sort of complex that's hard to describe, primarily due to the more liberal politics of many of them.
I do think that while he doesnt agree with the ideas at least Moore's take on Ditkos philosophy with Roscharch is consistent and better reasoned than most. Roscharch is antisocial and maladapted but also a highly idealistic individual that consistently holds his beliefs. I guess Watchmen seems like the kind of comic Ditko may not have liked as per the essay, but I believe that Moore was not trying to portray heroic characters and hence they dont quite succeed.
@@mikhaelgribkov4117 He wasn't a selfish sociopath he was a flawed character at the start of his journey. And he fucking created the character. It's disrespectful as fuck to use a character that wouldn't even exist if not for Ditko and use it to shit on Ditko. And these Jabs aren't deconstructions like Denny o'neil they are just making fun of steve ditko.
Great video. I always find Rand really frustrating. Her ideas are incredibly appealing to an individual in a vacuum, but played out onto society I think you would, at best, get "good guy fascism"
Rand believed the government should only exist to protect the rights and defend the people of the nation it belongs to. She did not believe in fascism as a form of government or societal structure.
@@CosmoShidan My comment got auto deleted but no that's not what Rand advocates for and no that's not what fascism is. I'm upset at people obviously misunderstanding Objectivism, but I don't even agree with her positions on things tbh. I would be for an anarchist state.
@@powblockmasterAn anarchist state with the capitalist economic system is simply neofeudalism. You can’t give ultimate freedom to immoral people with great power and influence and expect them to behave morally.
I got that Witzend issue number three with the first Mr. A story when it came out while I was in junior high school. At the time I found the character very compelling. As I got older and got some real-life experience under my belt, I came to see the notion that everything is black or white to be childishly simplistic. But I still love Ditko's art, and I still have that Witzend.
In essence, yes. But Ditko put that spin on it, like mentioned in the video. It's not so much that his heroes are altruistic - or that they even care about anybody other than themselves - but that his heroes do what they do because "bad guys need to be punished". Before leaving the ASM title, he wrote a storyline where Peter Parker decides that he's been duped into helping others, and decides to quit being a hero to help others.
@@calebleland8390 In those old Spider-Man stories, Peter Parker is a total psycho that gleefully laughs at the idea of his enemies being killed. Spider-Man is treated like an almost split personality to Peter.
I believe all the capitalism/objectivism was merely a convenient cover for his more closely held beliefs involving the inspiration for Dr.Droom and the Jack Parsons impersonating doctor strange.
I am not a fan of Objectivism, but it certainly inspired some serious artist that generation. And, to be fair I have never deep dived into the philosophy itself, just some in its adherents. All of whom, I feel have been, by and large, gross. Even Pen and Teller disappoint with their politics, in my opinion, and cite Objectivism as their inspiration. Sorry, it this offends. And like I said, it has made for compelling art. I also think, Bolshevik communism made some great art, and is also a poor philosophy. So, there is that.
To hear Penn talk about it recently, it sounds like he's gotten disappointed with it himself. There was a moment when he realized that antivaxxers were treating him as an ally, and it seems to have led to some soul-searching.
Always looking for stuff about Steve Ditko and how objectivism impacted his work, thank you so much for this nuanced & human perspective at his work and ideals’ influence
Just looking at the art for Mr A, it's first rate, really nothing else like it. You just wonder what might have been if Ditko could have had a collaborator to channel the story in a more subtle direction
Ditko was a complicated person, just like everyone else is. His objectivism seems to relate only to the comic book world. Then again, since he was never interviewed we may never know
As an Ayn Rand scholar, Ditko is interesting in that he seems singularly obsessed with art as much as science - his political cartoons that tried to explain every viewpoint are deadly prolix - but the Blue Beetle story of crying hippies and mud statues always makes me think he advanced the craft of comics so hard because he expected others to do the same. He never grappled with what I once called the motivating paradox of objectivism - that it still has all the laws of physics of communism, inexorable masses vs. bosses in top hats, good rationalists vs. evil mystics, it just inverts the good and bad guys - he was almost never concerned with the masses. Even his comics work is always concerned with the individual do-goodnik and chiseled rebuttal, not the crowds, ever. It's probably my best guess why he never identified explicitly with her philosophy, he got that she was working off a different framework. She's macro and he's micro - the single vigilante punching the single corrupt politician.
The crowd is made of individuals. Everything starts at the individual level. Collectivism is the true evil, for it is predicated on suppressing individualism and treating humans like colonial insects.
I wouldn't call myself a scholar, but one thing that strikes me about Objectivism is its blindness - if not utter rejection - of knock-on effects. And it's right there in Atlas Shrugged. Wyatt's Torch is held up as a symbol of righteous independence... and nevermind the ecological problems it's causing. Wyatt had the right to burn his oil, and damn the consequences. Or how everyone in the Gulch is happily building their private empire on pirated blood gold. Arguably the entire premise of the Strike is built on *exploiting* knock-on effects. It's seemingly baked-in that a person has no responsibility whatsoever for negative secondhand consequences of exercising their rights, no matter how much it might harm others. (Which is also, imo, why an Objectivist society would quickly degenerate into the best reality show ever.)
Ditko is a creator I'm always down to watch a video about, especially if it goes into his commitment to Objectivist Philosophy. I don't agree with Ditko's stance, at all, but it's interesting to look into because I don't agree with it and want to understand what he see's in it. Also, there are worse things you can do with16 minutes than look at a video full of his art work.
So, I had to turn off the most bitchin' metal playlist ever to watch this video. I am eminently satisfied with that decision. Thank you, and, 'til next time. ;)
7:28 - 8:10 I wonder if Dikto is refering to the early Superman stories, in which Supes often acted as he wanted without respect for the law, to do whatever he felt was morally upright that month's issue. Like the time he declared war on all cars in order to frieghten drivers into following traffic laws more safely, as to avoid car accidents. It is also possible that he may be refering to The Spirit, who often did as he pleased even when it angered his friend the commissioner. The story in which The Spirit captures a man who's falsely been declared innocent, and forces him into a mock trial to confess his crimes on tape, certainly feels like a more light hearted version of the typical Mr. A plot. That, and they look a little bit alike.
Honestly I think mr a would have been a lot more popular if the comic was in colour. An all white character really doesn’t pop on the page when the whole thing is black and white.
@@bootblacking you know what I meant. I assume your trying to make it a race issue, but I’m not sure why. Think how moon knight looks on the page when he’s in his mr knight uniform.
Look, if you can't see what's dangerous about white moral absolutists and how these ideas really only benefit the already privileged then I can't help you
Just so you'll know, as a matter of US law it isn't possible to libel the dead. No one has the legal standing to bring an action for libel on behalf of a dead person. This isn't the case under other legal systems but it is the standard in the US.
Rand was a bit more controversial in her time though. She wasn't just anti-communist, but also anti-religion, anti-family values and anti-social contract.
That was another great video, I throughly enjoy your content and your penchant for covering the more esoteric aspects of the comic industry. I find the philosophies presented within this video interesting if somewhat crude as I enjoy learning about philosophy myself and I find it particularly interesting as I am learning more skepticism as well as the philosophies of both Aristotle and Hume. Anyways, sorry for the diatribe and keep up the good work. Perhaps you could cover the series "Marvels" and it's sequel "Marvels: eye of the beholder". I find those stories to be an interesting take on superheroes from the perspective of normal people.
I'll always be fascinated with how Ditko's most famous creation is pretty much the complete antithesis of himself. Spider-Man's entire philosophy is centered around helping people and no matter how much the universe may put him through the wringer, he'll always come out a better person for it, and people love him because of it. Meanwhile, Ditko's pseudo-intellectual philosophy boils down to being a complete asshole to everyone, which more or less rendered him a pariah in the mainstream comic industry, and his refusal to compromise his principles not only ended up costing him his career prospects but also became its own counter-argument. Spider-Man would have never become the beloved, multi-billion dollar icon he is if Ditko had had his way with him, especially considering how reviled his other characters like Mr. A and The Question were, at least until some competent writers got a hold of them. In the end, all that Ditko's personal philosophy ended up proving is how much of a self-defeating exercise it is and that how much better off Spider-Man was without him. To paraphrass Anton Chigurh: "If sticking to your principles has led you to this, of what use were they?"
If you're looking for info on Rorschach, Comic Pop did an interview with Tom King on the book. I'm pretty sure King basically says the same reasons you speculated for fictionalizing Ditko.
You keep discussing Ditko's principles that he lived with and that it should be enough for us, but Ditko's very philosophy invites the necessity to JUDGE it, as he lived in judgement of everything beyond himself. I mean, creating work and sending it out as "missives" for your ideals doesn't exempt your baseline philosophy from, well, being stupid af. Speaking for myself only, I tire of the endless "market of ideas" debate. Bad ideas/philosophies/principles exist constantly. We, collectively, decide this as well as individually. Ditko props his principles as untouchable and yet refuses any challenge to them. That's simply an echo chamber at the end of the day.
This is exactly why Alan Moore and Dennis O'Neil challenged his ideas. Even Ditko failed to see that Rorschach was calling out his philosophy as white supremacist. Hence, you are correct in your assessment.
I have to say, post-Crisis, The Question was the only new DC character re-boot I liked. The New DC ('86 onwards) was less interesting and glum by the 90s. The Question and Vertigo Comics were the only bright spots.
As much as I dislike objectivism, I have to give Steve Ditko credit in that he's much more interesting and likable than Stan Lee, the comic industry's greatest fraud who took credit for everything
Ditko hates flawed characters yet doesn’t realize Spider-Man is popular because Peter Parker has a flawed life…Ditko is tone deaf writer. He hates grey characters yet Mr A is literally an antihero.
@@NicolasSequeira Peter letting go the guy who shortly kills his uncle cause he didn’t want to help the person who screwed him over is a flaw that defines his whole character.
Seems appealing, it certainly makes the world small and manageable; of course you have to exclude quite a bit for the world to fit inside that box of all there is you build in your head with this noise. Small wonder Kirby created Adam Warlock or Him as a burn on Ditko and objectivism.
I am somewhat dubious about the quote attributed to Aristotle. It mentions Adams, and yet rather famously aristotle denied the existence of them. Since he couldn't imagine empty space between atoms, he didn't believe in atoms. He thought matter had to be continuous instead of separated into particles. So for Aristotle, there was no smallest possible piece of a substance.
Ayn Rand's work is much closer to Friedrich Nietzsche and Epicurus actually. Especially since her ethical position is ethical egoism. It's Nietzsche insofar as it's based around hyper-individuality, but more in line with Epicurus in that it aims for an objective view of ethics. Other than that, it's arguable that Ayn Rand plagiarized Nietzsche, and tried to evoke Epicurus, but without the whole friendship part that is the latter's namesake when translated from their native Greek. So, I guess you could say that Ditko was promoting psudeo-philosophy through Mr. A.
Mysterious man. I grew up on his run of Shade The Changing Man, which was futurist fun. The Creeper was just a touch more serious crime take via Batman. His Marvel runs were legendary of course, but I was more amazed by his runs on DC's Starman in the 1980s. I never saw his glory days on The Question, but I think I caught a run of his Legion (or was that Griffin with Ditko stylings, hmmm.) He better have gotten paid. Smut books and all.
@@miguelvelez7221 I hope it doesn't get adapted. The question didn't need to change, that hack did it on purpose because he didn't like Ditkos political view. instead of creating his own character, he took someone else's and instilled his views on the character. Like I said, hot garbage.
If you are having some trouble finding some of the Ditko essays and such I recommend seeing if you can reach out to his publisher that he worked with later in life Robyn Snyder. She ran all the Ditko kickstarters from his sunset years. I’m sure she isn’t hard to get a hold of and you can probably order from her directly some of his more obscure stuff. Good luck and good videos on Ditko!
@@to_see-the-i_is-in_fhjv_to "It's based on four pillars: objective reality, reason, self-interest, and laissez-faire capitalism. Objectivism rejects the idea that reality is determined by personal opinion, social convention, or a supernatural being, instead holding that reality is absolute and that reason is the only way humans can know it." -The Internet
What Ditko describes as a hero has nothing to do with selfishness, he says the exact opposite in this video and in 'Masters of comic book art'. But you're of course parroting a meme about objectivism that you heard somewhere and commenting before listening.
In ideology isn't coherent just because its holder says it is. I think Ditko would have agreed to that, even if he never overcame his chronic inability to see the glaring flaws within himself and his idols.
@@nohbuddy1 You mentioned why Dtiko would work on superheroes- You can hear Ditko's own words about superheroes in this video. Ditko working in superhero comics made perfect sense to him. He describes why he chose to make his art, it's almost the entire point of his essay in fact.
Rand often used the word "selfish" when she did not mean the typical definition of someone being a sociopath or greedy. She tried to redefine or use the word "selfish" to describe someone who is interested in the self and only does what is in one's own self interest and hierarchy of values. An objectivist hero would not be saving others due to self sacrifice or altruism but because it is something they personally wish to do and gain from.
Lol, I know. I always find it funny that it's their subjective viewpoint of what is objective is completely ignored because it completely dismantles the philosophy.
@@vincentbatten4686I mean kinda but not completely. Egoism has been kinda debunked because of psychology in 2000s. Rational egoism has been talked about a lot but there are a couple philosophers who build off objectivism ( although not off Rand)
@@vincentbatten4686You're giving so-called "Objectivists" way too much credit by describing "Objectivism" as philosophy. No one in the field of philosophy takes her seriously.
@@StrangeBrainParts im wrapping hopefully this end of 2024. It was inspired mostly by, and my further look into after the fact, your video on Mr. x and Mr. a.
@@StrangeBrainParts an honor to get a reply tho huge fan of your work! 👍 My movie about an all bandaged covered man seeks to not be derivative, but admittedly seems entirely to be so. This is its strength I feel when watching back these videos! But I’ll be sure to get it out when it’s done for you to see and make your own judgements.
When I got into comics, I loved Ditko's artwork, and when I discovered Mr. A and the Avenging World comic, I was quite impressed, even if I didn't quite understand what he was getting at. Those comics were my first steps towards eventually becoming, not an Objectivist, but a libertarian. And while Ditko didn't really make it clear enough, I think it's important for anyone covering it to realize that while libertarianism is a political philosophy, Objectivism is, or at least attempts to be, a more comprehensive philosophy that covers metaphysics, epistemology, and aesthetics, as well as political philosophy. Rand was unhappy with the libertarians because she thought they borrowed only the political aspects of libertarianism instead of whole-heartedly adopting Objectivism. Whatever one thinks of Ditko's philosophical views, the fact remains that he was a great artist, storyteller, plotter, etc. And his short-lived Shade, The Changing Man remains one of my favorite comic series.
While not at objectivist, I lean more to Hoppe. I do have to admire Ryd for taking libertarian ethics and trying to apply to even small aspects of her life. Like she even refused to "fix" her cats, because that whould violate mutual consent.
I can’t get enough of your videos, feel like I’m talking to my cool uncle who reads comics but I can only see like once a week 😂 l learn alot but I like how you give us info just to inform and you never talk down about anyone even if you don’t agree
To be fair, Tom king said on a interview william mayerson had a opposite ideology than ditko, It was more about being "citizen". I always took that as the explanation on why is not ditko, the character believed a differnt thing.
@@dakotah7683 bro I assumed that. he never justify it like that. And even if you dont like the "parody" Mayerson does have a very different believe system, that part is on the text itself. I would have found it odd if it was ditko with a different ideology.
by standards of the modern age , Ditko proved you could be chilled and reserved and humble, and still believe guff like ayn rand. The modern state of discourse could learn a thing or two from my first sentence, imo obvs
The core problem here is obvious and stated in the video, though not discussed: "Ditko does not describe the source on which his ideal is based". Maybe crooks only stand "against" something (though it's questionable), but, say, bolsheviks who scared Rand so much, as well as many super villains in comic books, have their own ideals and values. And without clearly justifying Mr. A's ideal as the superior one or the only true one, there is no way to avoid these gray areas. And it's a had thing to do outside of the religious point of view, in which the god would be an absolute measurement (which is, by the way, the logic in which Aristotle operated). Avoiding to admit it is, in my opinion, either a deliberate hoax to fool the reader or a sign of a narrow mind.
It's easy to see how Ditko wsx drawn to Rand, especially Atlas Shrugged, as while it's a decent novel, but an rasy accessible read for oseudo literary intellectuals, especially someone who's drawing Comics while there's a stigma at the time around at the time. It's a way of saying see I'm a real artist not like these other comic book guys. Whether its Objectivism or Catholicism or scientology or qanon, communism its a way for the intellectually insecure (which in the end should be all of us, for we know just about nothing in the cosmic sense of things) to grasp onto something in order to lord your "brillance", your lack of ignorance over others. It's silly, this urge to be intellectually superior, and as far from WISDOM as it gets
In saying so little about himself, and only really speaking ‘through his work’ Diko set up a situation where is legacy is ultimately defined by the varying interpretation of his fans, critics and observers. ‘Ditko’ is mine just as much as he is anyone else’s. That sense of ownership is why we all stay fascinated by something so enigmatic.
While I get some points of Objectivism, the tendency to enable selfish people rubs me the wrong way. (Doesn't help that my own opinions/philosophies are kinda muddled) And as Bioshock showed, Objectivism is NOT a good way to live by... Also, "Superheroes should not have flaws? Really, Steve?
So you’re saying a game, a fictional world proved objectivism wrong. No a story or world is simply a means for the author to discuss his ideas nothing more. Ken Levine was a leftie when he wrote bioshock a lot of his understanding of objectivism is bare bones and the fact he had to introduce a fictional drug to tear down rapture is both proof of this. There is no real world society that uses objectivism as a model for society so there is no way to test whether the philosophy is a success or not. I’m not a big Ayn Rand but it cannot be denied that her philosophy has genuine points that shouldn’t go unheard.
Also that video re enacting of Ditko speaks volumes as to how intelligent and firm he was in his beliefs. I heard the original segment quite often and yet when you say it it still has that epic tone to it I’m not sure how to explain it.
TBF, to my knowledge, Ditko kinda did it to himself, sequestering himself away from the rest of the world, refusing interviews or conversations about his work/life and kinda living the exact opposite of what Randian ubermenschs are supposed to live like. Either that or he's living the exact kind of life Randian heroes live, but nobody took him seriously.
@@paulakroy2635Possibly. But there's a line between being harassed and cutting yourself off from society and Ditko to me leaned in towards the latter, not the former.
@@dakotah7683True, but the dude followed a philosophy the emphasized a public persona. Randian heroes didn't hide away from the world, they stood tall and proud and were rewarded by society for their adherence to no man's power but their own. But Ditko didn't do that. He drifted away from society, hid himself from the world. For someone who followed a philosophy that supposedly is all about bettering society through rational self-interest, he ultimately demonstrated what happens in reality when someone follows that code. He wasn't rewarded by society for following his code; he cut himself off and died unmourned and unknown until people brought his death to public attention.
@@stevenguitink5947 Also, he never cut himself off. He answered hundreds of letters even near his death, lived in one of the biggest cities in the world in a studio apartment, and was close to his family. Not wanting to do an interview or a con panel ain't him cutting himself from society. Also unmourned. WTF are you talking about, people mourned his death plenty.
The big issue with objectivism is it leads to it's followers to make short sighted self serving decisions and justify them by saying they are right because.....they are right. In real life, people who are unwavering are often the worst of people. A good critique of Ditko's work is Rorshach.
@@leroypreston2973 Right, but what you just said (though still completely susceptible to argument the moment an explicit example of the deed is described) is more succinct than the quote. If the truth in question "contradicts itself" wouldn't that be the worst form of anti truth in terms of philosophy and practical application?
@@stevenfunderburg1623I don't understand your question. What you're asking is exactly what this is saying. The truth cannot contradict itself or it isn't truth is what this is saying. That said, that is still a subjective interpretation that is up for debate which is what I find so ironic about the statement. It's almost paradoxical as a statement.
@@vincentbatten4686 Well, that is precisely the point of my question. You clearly did get it and easily came to an identical conclusion, though you were more diplomatic in your phrasing 🤘
It's awkwardly phrased, but I think it's something like, "The truth cannot contradict itself,[STATED DIFFERENTLY, the truth cannot be the truth] and also be a lie." And that's a super obvious statement. But I think he's saying that people who like anti-heroes NEED a reminder of such a basic concept. Because an anti-hero is both a hero and a villain. So the statement "she's a hero" would be both a truth AND a lie. At least, I think that's what he means. 😂 Ditko had a weird writing tick where he'd state the same concept a few different ways. Stuff like, "evil must be rejected, shunned, spurned."
It's not the most popular opinion, but I didn't care that much for Ditko, his work or his beliefs. While his Dr. Strange, and to a lesser extent his Nick Fury work, I found really interesting, his other Marvel work just didn't do it for me. I'm far more Kirby than Ditko I suppose. One of Ditko's creations I can't stand is Mr. A, if you could even call that a Ditko creation. I vehemently oppose Ayn Rand's writings, as I find them cruel and focused on the rights of the capitalist class above all else. I take no issue of the atheism or the individual rights Rand championed, but to so callously reject altruism I find heartless and cruel. I find Mr. A as a character the same way. Mr. A would not lend a hand to save you if you stole stationary supplies from work or, like I said in a comment below, not interfere and let a person get hit by a car if they were guilty of jaywalking. That is not only far from being a hero in my book, but more evil than most comic book villains. Many of villains found in comics found themselves pushed in that direction due to circumstances beyond their control, where they were the victim at one time or another, or simply at the wrong place at the wrong time which snowballed into something incontrollable. Mr. A self appoints himself judge and jury; to not intervene in saving the life of another because he has deemed their lives forfeit because they did not meet a moral standard he himself imposed and that the other person may not even be aware of. Mr. A find nothing wrong with judging an individual from afar for whatever crime he believes them guilty of and then stands back to watch them die as the most perverse and immoral voyeur imaginable. A character like Mr. A is always only a split second away from becoming the worst version of Rorschach imaginable when just letting these supposed perpetrators perish isn't good enough and for him to remain morally superior to dole out the punishments himself. There isn't a far jump in logic to think "maybe pushing this criminal in front of an oncoming train is more just than waiting for him to just fall in front of it, that way he can't commit more crimes before that perverted form of Justice eventually shows up to hand out its sentence.
While it's cool to fight against the cliche of the crazed outsider when hastily and carelessly applied to Ditko, I find odd the diatribe on the conclusion against general mediocrity. It ressonates weirdly with the objectivist world view.
Hearing about the friendly person he was, and reading his rather tract-like ramblings creates an odd dichotomy. In writing he sounds proper mad, but as a human he sounds lovely. What I'm saying is; I'm getting mixed signals!
@@VuotoPneumaNN Man Of Steel is existentialist not objectivist. Zack Snyder liked fountainhead because its a story about an artist struggling under a large corporation not for Ayn Rand's politics. People have conflated the two and spilled two much ink trying to force man of steel into an objectivist framework which makes 0 sense (for instance superman sacrifices his entire race for humanity). The only part which could be considered objectivist is Johnathon Kent telling Clark no one deserves to be saved by him but he is explicitly wrong and Clark goes against his teachings as an adult (his ghost even admits as such) John Kent also ends up sacrificing himself for his son so not objectivist.
Ditko did indeed write a few issues of Spider-Man and they are exactly what you might expect. Spider-Man yelling at strawman protesters and other strange things that are so anathema to the Peter Parker that Stan Lee wrote.
It's been obvious to me that the early Spidey stuff that stayed consistent from the jump and continued after Romita took over art was what Stan brought to the table. Every aspect that seemed to disappear was Ditko and THANK GOD, because Ditko Spidey is so effing insufferable.
A lot of people are ignorant here. Ditko was plotting the majority of the Ditko/Lee run himself, and Stan only provided dialogue + ideas. For example, it is often said Ditko didn't want the Green Goblin to be Norman Osborn due to his objectivist beliefs (which is misunderstanding Objectivism but that's besides the point), however Ditko was the artist and purposefully was putting him in the background of Jonah's gentlemen's club for the reveal.
