Ladies and gentlemen, today is the 10th anniversary for my Ditko Looked Up web site...

http://www.ditko.comics.org

On April 8th, 1998, we debuted the site to an unsuspecting public, and we're really going to ramp it up as we head into our eleventh year!

To celebrate, we've completely revamped the look of the site to make it more eye-pleasing, but also to improve navigation.

And we're committing to weekly updates (every Tuesday) leading up to the June 2008 release of my "Strange and Stranger: The World of Steve Ditko" book from Fantagraphics!

Speaking of which, the book is finished and at the printer's! Our site update includes the latest news on the book, including the final chapter-by-chapter breakdown!

We've also created a section on the site to report on details of the new Steve Ditko graphic novel coming this spring, Steve's first new work in 8 years!

And just to make 2008 the "Year of Steve Ditko" we bring you reports from the field about the return of the fanzine, Ditkomania! Check out the pics of Ditkomania on the shelves at Toronto comic store, The Beguiling!

Thousands of other goodies await you in our 10th anniversary update of "Ditko Looked Up!"

Blake Bell
http://www.ditko.comics.org

---

(Clarified subject line above and added book details below. ~ Linda)

[bigred]Strange And Stranger: The World Of Steve Ditko (Hardcover)[/bigred]
[lilred]by Blake Bell[/lilred]



In the wake of the astonishing success of Sam Raimi's three Spider-Man movies, Steve Ditko has become known as the co-creator, with Stan Lee, of the early 1960s character that helped propel Marvel Comics' popularity on college campuses and gave it much of its cultural cachet throughout that decade. But, in the context of Steve Ditko's 50-year career in comics, his creative involvement with Spider-Man is merely the tip of the iceberg.

Ditko is known among the cartooning cognoscenti as one of the supreme visual stylists in the history of comics, as well as the most fiercely independent cartoonist of his generation. His unique style and innovative spatial designs moved from the imaginatively hallucinatory landscapes of Dr. Strange to the almost plebeian earthiness of The Amazing Spider-Man.

Ditko began his career in the 1950s drawing comics for the notorious low-budget Charlton Comics (the Roger Corman Productions of the comics industry) where he developed his craft on various genre titles. He started working for Stan Lee at Marvel Comics in 1958, churning out monster/horror stories, until he was conscripted to work on Marvel's new super-hero line, for which he provided the visual conceptions of The Hulk, Spider-Man, and Dr. Strange, and plotted and drew these characters' adventures between 1962 and 1966. By 1966, Spider-Man had become a pop culture icon, and it was then that Ditko quit drawing the character over mysterious circumstances that will, for the first time, be investigated here.

He immediately created his Ayn Rand-inspired character, Mr. A, whose first story appeared in Witzend, a black-and-white pre-underground independent comics magazine edited and published by Wally Wood, another talented stylist who chafed under the constraints of the mainstream comics publishers of the time. Ditko went on to work at various publishing companies such as DC Comics, Warren Publishing, and even Marvel Comics (albeit steadfastly refusing to ever draw Spider-Man again), writing and drawing his didactic Mr. A stories, relentlessly extolling the philosophical precepts of Ayn Rand, and, more recently, bitter visual jeremiads against the moral status quo of the comics industry.

[title]Strange & Stranger: The World of Steve Ditko[/title] is a coffee table art book tracing Ditko's life and career, his unparalleled stylistic innovations, his strict adherence to his own (and Randian) principles, with lush displays of obscure and popular art from the thousands of pages of comics he's drawn over the last 55 years.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1560979216/?tag=imwan-20

congrats on the anniversary, and terrific news about the new Ditko book!

Trying to make me look bad, eh Gerry?

Suh-weet!!!

Happy to pre-order this one. Congratulations on your hard work coming to fruition and I hope it's a success, Blake.

Congrats on the anniversary & book. Excellent news.

I want to per-CHAYSE this.

I pre-ordered quite a bit ago. Anxiously waiting...

The waiting for this is killing me.

Thanks for everyone's continued interest in my book, and the kind words about the site. At least, for those who the wait is killing them, will only have to wait a little while longer...

http://www.ditko.comics.org/ditko/PRbook_08apr22.pdf

So, how soon after the June debut will it ship from Amazon, Blake?
Any idea? My experience with Amazon is that they do all right on older stuff,
but whenever I (pre-) order something new, it seems to take them forever.

Still, good news, as it sounds like I should have my copy in six weeks or so.

Good luck with the launch, Blake.

arrived today, i may be busy for some time . . .

there was a short review in Entertainment Weekly regarding this. They gave it an A- (but really told you nothing of substance about the book).

There is a lot of preview material, including a cool video on Fantagraphics' site.

http://www.fantagraphics.com/index.php? ... &Itemid=62

I got it yesterday and finished it today. Very interesting book.

After re-reading this last night, I think it might make Linda sad.

Great interview with Blake here:

http://www.comicsreporter.com/index.php ... blake_bell

Some Thoughts on Blake Bell's Book, or
Did Steve Ditko Once Play Baseball?

by Mike DeLisa

At the 1973 Comic Art Convention in New York City I wandered into a tiny conference room off of the main room. It was empty of fans, but filled with table after table of medieval weapons -- club, crossbow, sword -- all covered with the grime of the ages. I glanced around, wondering what the exhibit had to do with the comic convention outside its doors. Sitting quietly in one corner was a white-haired old man who was watching me with a wry smile.

"Those things did some deadly work in their day, don't you think?"
"I can't imagine being hit by that mace," I answered.
"Pick it up,” he said indicating.

I grasped, lifted -- and it was light as a feather! The club had been carved out of balsa and meticulously painted to simulate a real weapon.

The old guy laughed, and we were soon engaged in conversation about his work, tools and techniques of his art. At some point I realized we didn't know each other's names and I introduced myself.

He held out his hand: "I'm C.C. Beck!" I was thrilled to be speaking with the artist responsible for Captain Marvel! I asked about the empty room. He told me, in effect, that Phil Seuling had invited him to display his art. Seuling didn't know that Beck's latest art involved balsa-wood weapons.

Outside, in the hall, a shout went up and some kids went running by -- "Hey! There's Gil Kane!"

Later, at the same convention I wound up walking from table to table with Al Feldstein. At one point we came across one of the EC comics for which he had drawn the cover. He asked me "do you think that anyone would be interested in buying an original recreation of that cover?"

"No," I answered, "but I think people would be interested in seeing new comic stories from you. I can't imagine anyone would want a recreation, rather than something new."

At a panel later that day, Jim Steranko gave a talk, concluding: “Nobody tells a story better than Steve Ditko.”

***

I've read Blake's Bell's book on Steve Ditko. I find Bell's book wrong in so many ways I am having a hard time getting my mind around it. His word choice, his mode of expression, his facts, his methods, his conclusions, has me nearly speechless right now. I've also read several reviews on various web sites, which compels me to lay out a few thoughts.

Why is the book so poor in my opinion? Well, although there are scattered anecdotal references to Ditko's storytelling and art, Blake's comments about this fundamental issue are insipid and lacking. Use of words and phrases such as “visual integrity” and negative space” take the place of clear thinking and reasoned analysis. What he writes indicates he does not see very well. In one instance he cites that Ditko ceased varying thickness of his line -- an observation belied by the accompanying illustration. And even if true, is a think line better than thin line, and if so why? In another, a character drops a basket and Blake talks about his hat. In yet another, he talks about Ditko’s “one-page” story and shows the first page of a multi-page story. He writes about “loose” penciling then shows a page better illustrated than most comics that have been fully inked. Can we trust the opinion of a “journalist” who writes such things?

The "biographical" aspects of the book are also problematic. Let's consider the following which Ditko wrote (reprinted in Avenging World, pg. 10):

"There are facts, truths, and knowledge that are nobody's business, or only the business of those directly involved. ... Some facts and truths are available as "public' knowledge. Other facts belong to the individual who possesses (owns) it and paid the price, time, effort, and experience. It is his earned knowledge and intellectual and personal property."

As early as 1965, Ditko himself wrote the key/pertinent facts about himself. These facts have been reprinted many times. Did Blake ever ask himself why, other than curiosity, any other fact about Ditko would be relevant or appropriate? Or, if no facts available, whether Blake's "opinion" is relevant and appropriate? More simply stated: what is the purpose of the book?

Blake's text is full of statements such as "Charlton's main intention" or Ditko must have thought/felt etc. They are too many to list here, but certainly the most infuriating. This sort of glib stab at psychology is the worst (and easiest) kind of journalism. Blake doesn't have enough facts for a biography, so he substitutes his opinion or the opinion of others to get inside Ditko's head. I know how difficult it is to write a biography. I spent several years researching and writing "Cinderella Man." For my book, however, I was able to draw upon many interviews with Braddock and others in his circle, as well as books and articles written by or in conjunction with him. Braddock placed his life in the public eye -- or at least a part of it. Ditko however has not done so -- other than to give his best efforts over 50 years in his work. So, again: what is the purpose of the book?

We do get the statement by Dean Mullaney that the work done by Cat Ironwode towards her unfinished book on Ditko "is relevant to his work." Really? In what way? How on earth is it relevant to learn that Ditko once gave his brother a piggy-back ride? Or that Ditko’s mother wore her hair in a bun? How are those “facts” designated as public rather than private? Who cares?

Blake's factual assertions and criticisms are devoid of standards, sloppy in thought and usually just plain wrong. Incredibly bad is his handling of Ditko's role in the creation of Spider-man, especially bad because Ditko himself has written extensively on the subject. I am going to write more on this another time. But Blake's description of this event reads as if Lee presented Ditko with a detailed synopsis without input from Ditko. Is that true? Important?

The factual errors pile up, accreting like sludge in a sewer. Blake implies that the "marvel method" was developed after the super-hero line. But is it not a fact that Ditko and Lee worked/collaborated that way on the mystery, fantasy, and science fiction pages. (see page x of Blake's book). Blake also writes of Ditko "wresting" plotting credit from Lee -- as if that is a good thing. Is it a fact? Has Blake read Ditko's views of Lee's "creative crediting?" Apparently not.

Bell has set himself up as the foremost "Ditko scholar,” including his objectivist work, but his understanding of objectivism seems shaky at best. As a self-proclaimed expert why did he overlook or omit quoting/discussing the following: "While accepting Objectivism as my philosophical base: I am not a spokesman for Objectivism and I alone am responsible for the views expressed here! S. Ditko." GUTS #5 (1969)

Does Blake understand the difference between narrative/fictional comic book stories and the non-narrative work pioneered by Ditko in such works as Amazing World? Can anyone with even the vaguest notion of any critical standards actually write "Blue Beetle #5 was the first signpost that Ditko was losing confidence in his graphics to represent his ideas, and is increasingly evident in Mysterious Suspense #1, a collection of the Question stories?" In the classic phrase of the comics "WHAT TH-??"

Even the smallest details always seem off. There are many peculiar assumptions of fact and misused words. An example: Blake describes Mr.#1 as an "oversized issue." In what way was the magazine oversized? More likely, the first issue of Mr. A is printed in a size deemed appropriate by Ditko. Clearly, in Blake's mindset, anything that varies from the roughly 7 x 10 inches used by Marvel & DC for their comics are aberrant. Is that a fanboy mindset or the mindset of an objective journalist or a biased critic?

Another example: Blake writes "Ditko drew genres as disparate as Western, war and science fiction." Ditko drew comics. Each misuse or mistake or misperception totals to a complete undercutting of his opinions.

How can a retrospective of Ditko's work not include an in-depth discussion of "Lazlo's Hammer"?

Lazlo's Hammer is reprinted in Avenging World (2002). If I recall correctly, prior to that, Ditko allowed one "fan" to photocopy and distribute copies to those interested in reading that work. Does that fact support or undercut Blake's description of Ditko's relationship with readers/fans of his work? Is it relevant?

Why is Ditko criticized implicitly and directly by Blake for not doing other kinds of work besides comics, such as recreations of Spider-man covers? Should we criticize a doctor for not working as a hedge find manager for more money? Should CC Beck have been condemned for crafting balsa wood weapons instead of Captain Marvel comics?

Despite its flaws, the book was revealing to me in several ways:

• I learned that DC operated from "ivory towers" with "hallowed halls."
• I learned that the guy who wrongfully held then sold Ditko work in 1969 scammed Blake on eBay.
• I learned that two "Italian immigrants" started Charlton: John Santangelo and Ed Levy!
• I learned that Ditko draws ugly feet.
• I learned that "fandom" is an entity with a "collective consciousness."
• I leaned that the Johnstown Flood of has a "connection" with the Guerneville Flood of 1986.
• I learned that a daughter of beatniks once thought a Ditko-drawn cigarette looked like a joint.
• I learned that Ditko uses "Orson Wells camera angles." (I guess including dolly shots!)
• I learned that someone told somebody else that Ditko once played baseball! (CHOKE! GOOD LORD!)

Most importantly, and revealing, I learned that if Blake had the time to draw 2000 "bad" pages of comics, he would be making comics and be "right up there" with Ditko. Again, I utter the comic classic: What th--!?

Ditko helped establish and an entire grammar for comic book storytelling. How and why Ditko's "comics" are superior might be interesting and valuable. This book, on the other hand, is neither. I think Bell has left what Ditko would call a "very ugly stain." And saddest of all, he seems oblivious.

With publication of this book, Blake has taken a mighty swing with Lazlo's Hammer.

-30-

© 2008 Mike DeLisa. Permission is granted to reprint or republish if left unchanged and copyright notice intact.

Another example: Blake writes "Ditko drew genres as disparate as Western, war and science fiction." Ditko drew comics. Disparate means unequal. Blake probably means "different." Each misuse or mistake or misperception totals to a complete undercutting of his opinions.
***
disparate




Main Entry: dis·pa·rate
Pronunciation: \ˈdis-p(ə-)rət, di-ˈsper-ət, -ˈspa-rət\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English desparat, from Latin disparatus, past participle of disparare to separate, from dis- + parare to prepare — more at pare
Date: 15th century
1 : containing or made up of fundamentally different and often incongruous elements
2 : markedly distinct in quality or character
synonyms see different
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disparate

couldnt disagree more with the hatchet job done here.go and write your own book.

The review reads like a Supey thread.

I'm afraid to read this now.