Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Friday, April 10, 2009

Objectivication

Posted by on Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:59 PM

Steve Ditko, the co-creator (or creator, depending on who you ask) of Spider-Man, is famous for becoming a recluse who follows Ayn Rand's "philosophy" of Objectivism to the letter. He refuses to do interviews and he also refuses to work with any comic book company that he considers immoral. Apparently, there is no morally upright comic book company, because Ditko doesn't work much anymore.

Well, a recent essay by Ditko has surfaced at Big Hollywood, the conservative pop culture site. The thing that most surprised me was that Ditko apparently still reads comics, even though they're produced by morally inferior creatures. But the rest of it is still crazy Ditko rantings:

a5a8/1239392540-ditko.jpgThe black-and-white standard has already been agreed upon by the majority as “smashed” into a grey rubble of more or less grey, into anti-heroes and non-entities, down to zeroes, a nothing, so useless.

The much maligned B-westerns showed a clearly defined moral code, a standard. Those westerns identified a range from good to degrees of wrong, to the bad/evil.

The cowboy in the “white hat” (good), the hero, fights fair, helps people in distress, defends the law, fights rustlers, lawbreakers, etc. He acts as an agent of justice.

The cowboy in the “black hat” (the bad), the villain, fights unfairly, cheats, stabs, shoots people in the back, steals property, robs banks, rustles cattle, etc. He acts as an agent of the bad.

The cowboy in the “grey hat” (a sneak), tips off the villains about gold shipments, spies on the sheriff, on honest people with wealth, spreads lies, is an agitator, etc. He is an agent of compromise and corruption.

The honest but uncertain sheriff doesn’t have the information, knowledge, about the newcomer hero, so he’s suspicious, tending to believe the lies of the local black and grey hats who are posing as helpful and honest townspeople. He is an agent still collecting, weighing, actions, evidence, for a legal judgment.

The confused heroine is also not trusting the hero because of the uncertainty of the sheriff and the lies from the black and grey hats. She is an agent of emotional and moral uncertainty.

Later, the anti-hero western’s realism muddied the clear identities into greyness: “We’re all alike,” “Nobody is better than anyone else.”

The whole essay involves recent comic books, September 11th, Agatha Christie, and Lazlo Toth. It's a fascinating mess.

 

Comments (17) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Sweet Jeebus! That man needs some whiskey and whores, stat!
Posted by Urgutha Forka on April 10, 2009 at 4:13 PM
2
He should stick to cartoons.
Posted by sgiffy on April 10, 2009 at 4:31 PM
3
Agreed. He doesn't know fucking anything about westerns, that's for sure. Or, uh, writing.
Posted by Fnarf on April 10, 2009 at 4:32 PM
4
i'm just wondering which came first -- the reclusiveness or the crazy.
Posted by brandon on April 10, 2009 at 4:38 PM
5
Where does Lash get his information that Rorschach was "Originally intended to be a scathing satire/commentary on Objectivism..."...? I always thought he was just the anti-hero-alienated-loner vigilante stereotype of the group.
Posted by Bruce Garrett on April 10, 2009 at 4:41 PM
6
This reminded me of his "NO color!" postcard I read about last year:

http://www.fantagraphics.com/index.php?o…

Posted by stinkbug on April 10, 2009 at 4:55 PM
7
Paul I believe the quotes you placed around "philosophy" belong around "follows."
Posted by kresblamania on April 10, 2009 at 5:32 PM
8
@5, Ditko created the objectivist comic book hero "The Question" in 1967 for Charlton comics, which was eventually bought up by DC/WB/TimeWarner in 1985s. When Alan Moore pitched his idea for what became "Watchmen" to DC Comics that year, it originally featured the Charleton heroes. DC balked at the idea of having their recently-acquired stable of characters deconstructed, and so Moore made changes to the characters to make them his own. The Question became Rorschach, Blue Beetle became Nite Owl, Peacemaker became the Comedian, Peter Cannon became Adrian Veidt, Captain Atom became Doctor Manhattan, and so on.

Moore said that in writing Rorschach he also folded in elements of another objectivist Charleton Ditko hero creation, Mr. A...
Posted by pervert suits on April 10, 2009 at 5:33 PM
9
He's supposed to be an objectivitst? I've read a little bit of Ayn Rand, and her heroes aren't white hats. They don't go around "helping people in distress" from what I saw. In fact, the philosophy of altruism is seen as a tool of evil that's used to oppress our rightful ubermench overlords. Her heroes run around thinking Important Things, and building companies or buildings, and taking whatever they can, often by right of conquest. They're far too busy designing a new steam engine to be bothered about rescuing anyone tied to the railroad tracks. Unless its a hot chick that impresses them with her sexy disdain, in which case they have the right to rape her after they've untied her, and she'll probably enjoy it anyway.
Posted by Beguine on April 10, 2009 at 5:37 PM
10
@9, you're failing to take into account that Ditko is obviously batshit crazy
Posted by pervert suits on April 10, 2009 at 5:50 PM
11
ive been posting as fake Ayn Rand at myballard just to be a dick
Posted by Go away! 'Batin'! on April 10, 2009 at 6:10 PM
12
@9: What interesting about the rant quoted is that it doesn't have much admiration for pure altruism (the white hats): it sees them as weak, hesitant and enabling, the same way that Rand sees altruism.

What I know of Ditko's heroes suggests that he subscribes to a manichean morality that Rand didn't, but he seems to share her critique (a kind way of putting it?) of do-gooders.
Posted by Lee on April 10, 2009 at 7:08 PM
13
Who's f*cking crazier, Ayn Rand, or her followers?
Posted by "Objective" my aching ass! on April 11, 2009 at 11:49 AM
14
rands biggest error was to judge the imperceptible as irrelevant... the intolerance necessarily follows in such a consistent system.
Posted by fag on April 11, 2009 at 12:04 PM
15
Ayn Rand was a wonderful romance novelist. She just needed a better editor.
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay on April 11, 2009 at 4:16 PM
16
Ayn Rand was brilliant both as a novelist and as a philospher. It's not unusual, as witnessed in the prior posts, to see critiques by many individuals whom have probably really read any of her works. That requires intellectual independence and effort. It's much easier to copy the views of others without ever discovering the truth for yourself.

"Atlas Shrugged" changed my life because it exemplified the ideals that virtues demand. Ayn Rand needed no editor...her book sales are proof of that.
Posted by Robert Taylor on April 12, 2009 at 6:11 AM
17
@16

Agreed. Except that I think you meant to say "never read."

Even so-called Objectivists are frequently seriously misguided in their interpretations of Rand's writings. Witness Ditko's lifestyle. Objectivism is a very challenging (and, yes, flawed like any other) philosophy that even Rand herself had trouble following.

When you announce to people that you believe reason is your ideal, that there should be no exceptions to being rational, then be prepared to be deluged with criticism from people who don't understand that this is something that you aspire to, not something that you have achieved.
Posted by kresblamania on April 12, 2009 at 7:06 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy