Not much, but he does have a couple of quotes.

Love that headline. "Doodles"? Really.

I actually enjoyed that. It was written in such a way that a person like me who just wonders what the hell makes him tick could get a glimpse.

I hope his correspondence with Dave Sim comes to light, sooner rather than later.

That was an interesting glimpse at Ditko.

He sounds like some of the folks around here!

He never married, never had children. He was never particularly close to anyone with whom he worked. He has been called “impossibly uptight.” ...

Ditko has fallen out with many of his colleagues over the years because of conflicts or perceived slights. He no longer speaks to Stan Lee because in 1999, Lee wrote an open letter assigning Ditko half of the credit for creating Spider-Man, saying he “considered” Ditko to be the co-creator. Ditko took issue with the word “consider,” and that was that.

That story was great. Thanks for the link. It's good to see Ditko getting a little recognition (though he'd rather not get any!) from beyond the comic buying public.

And he still draws for 8 hours a day, as he's been doing for decades. Aren't you glad you prefer more *normal* artists?

Ditko is a conundrum.

He wants nothing to do with Spider-Man and is irritated that people keep asking him about it. Feh! It was one paying job from 50 years ago! Get off my lawn already!

Fair enough.

But then, as the story shows, he gets pissed when he doesn't get what he feels is adequate credit for his role in Spider-Man, as witnessed by his anger towards Stan Lee.

Eh, a complex man -- and a talent.

I appreciate Ditko's work immensely, but the more I hear about the man himself the more I get the impression he's just not very bright, in either personality or intellect. There's a reason Ayn Rand's books are categorized as Science Fiction — it's because that shit don't work in the real world.

Ditko has the remarkable ability to get worse with practice. His objectivist stuff is pretty much garbage, and that's now the majority of his life's work. I'm inclined to agree with Allen's assessment: there's something not right with an 84 year old man still obsessed with such a simple-minded worldview. "Doodles" about sums it up.

I am not a Libertarian or Objectivist in any way. But I need to say, two of the brightest people I know are very much those.

I don't think it is the level of intellect that is required that makes a system work or not.

That said, I am a big hippie so what the hell do I know.

If "doodles" can make for a productive 60-year career, then we need more "doodlers." How many of your favorite comic book artists spend eight hours a day drawing?



Did you witness the anger personally? He pointed out that credit for co-creation is not Lee's to give. Where is the anger in stating a fact?

Ditko's current work lacks the finesse and polish it used to have. He's eschewed almost all rendering and shading because it conveys 'grey areas' fer gosh sakes. It wouldn't be a good fit for Marvel or DC's output today. That's not his aim though. He's illustrating political tracts and even if I don't think Randism is a practical, workable system, his artwork is okay in that context. In fact, his drawings have become so simplified yet still individualistic that I've heard them described, favorably, as Outsider Art. I'm sure he could make some real money if he had a canny manager and if he would listen to him, like that would ever happen.

Ness,

I've come across libertarians that are really smart people. I've even come across a few "objectivists" who are also really smart people. One thing that these 2 groups share is that they're not dogmatic followers of one cultish leader.

Weemie,

I have no idea how much time my favorite comic book artists spend drawing per day. I don't care, since it's unimportant to whether I'll find their books any good. I do know now that one of favorites spends 8 hours a day doing pamphlet doodles for an idiotic religion that he long ago committed himself to and that it amounts to years and years of garbage. That makes me sad.

How many of your favorite comic book artists would *like* to spend 8 hours a day drawing? How much does your being sad count for that?

Steve Ditko's gotten to spend his life making the comics he wants. If that makes you so sad you can't see anything else in his work, that's on you. He'll still go to work every day and do what he wants to do, just like a lot of comic book artists who want nothing more than to spend their days drawing and making a living at it. Dozens, possibly hundreds, maybe even thousands of comic book artists who wanted to fill up pages with their work but get caught up in compromised positions instead.

Time is money. Steve Ditko spends his working hours supporting himself by drawing, just as he's done for decades. You don't even have to like his work to see admirable traits that would do very well to be more commonplace, and not only in comic books.

And he was one of your 'favorites' too. Go figure.

I have no idea. I've been asking for twenty years now what the hell it is Paul Smith does for a living.

Chris, Paris Hilton gets to spend all of her time doing whatever the fuck she wants to do. Is that admirable?

Using one's time to promote the immoral beliefs of a nitwit aren't exactly something I find praiseworthy. Golly gee, wouldn't it be great if everyone were happy? Lalala -- Fuck no. It depends on what makes them happy and whether it's something worth celebrating. It would make me happy if everything weren't reducible to commodity ("time is money"), but do you care about my happiness? No you do not.

And, as usual, you are incapable of understanding anything you read: I didn't say Ditko's supporting himself through his art made me sad, but that it's the choice to use his talent for creating absolute bullshit. See the difference? No, well, that makes me sad, too.

What makes me sad is that Ditko won't send me all the original art pages from Spider-Man that he has produced.

It makes me very sad.

He successfully spends his time creating exactly what he wants to create. That you see some sort of implicit quality in people who don't spend as much time creating exactly what they want to create says more about you. There's a wide world of people between Steve Ditko and Paris Hilton, and they're all human beings whose time and work you ignore.

Let's put this in terms you might understand. Do you think Robert Johnson would have approved in any way of the use heroin addict jailbait chasers have made of his music? Would his ghost look at Mick and Keef's upcoming anniversary (next week) and see anything at the celebration - if they even get together in a room - he could even recognize? It would probably scare him straight back into church.

Now look at Brian Wilson. How many months did he spend recording each of those individual sections of "Good Vibration"? Heard one after the other (on the Smile re-release or whatever) they form a transcendent melody that urges the listener to fill in the missing vocal part, and do it exactly the way the Beach Boys did it. If it's wrong, everybody will know. The lyrics aren't deep or clever, more of a generic greatness that perfectly expresses the music. "I love the colorful clothes she wears, and the way the sunlight plays upon her hair."

All that time and energy spent on a couple minutes of music, that most people dismiss because it's the Beach Boys. Sucks to be them, I guess.

Your time is finite. When it's gone, it's gone. We'll never have the Popeye storylines Segar never got to. We may never had all the pre-Popeye Thimble Theater strips. But he still showed up to work every day. So did Carl Barks, who did very well for himself at the end.

Without people who sit down and do the stuff you complain about, you have nothing to complain about. Rather than show your gratitude for teaching you to distinguish things, you dismiss their time and effort entirely so long as they tickle your unique fancies. You can't even appreciate the sight of someone who spends a lifetime doing what he wants without compromise just for its own sake. How often do you see that, anyway?

That has not a lick of relevance to anything we've been talking about.

How do you know Ditko's doing what he wants to do -- based on an interview, personal conversation, what? How do you know he's even happy?

One doesn't celebrate bad art because it teaches one what bad art is. That's just stupid. It's just something else to ignore in life. Thanks a lot for that.

Ah, good point.

Yes it does. You're just not smart enough to see it.



The same way you know his work is garbage and he's a nitwit with immoral beliefs.



I bet you spend very little time being forced against your will to experience Steve Ditko comics when you'd rather be watching a movie. They both (all) have to exist for you to be capable of any comparison or distinction, and to exist, someone has to make them. Those who can budget their time to further making what they want to make over their lives have a natural advantage over those who can't, or won't.

So you're a fan of the hardworking Bolsheviks?

Would any of this shit you so love exist if it hadn't been for the nitwit -- that is, Ayn Rand, whose blinkered thought is exactly my problem with said shit? To boil this down for you, Ditko faces the same problem you're leveling at me: he requires the existence of others to do what he does. (If that also sounds like a reason for thinking Randian philosophy is inherently contradictory and immorally stupid, then you'd be a smarter reader than I previously gave you credit for. My guess is that it'll pass right through. Think, Chris, A is A.)



By all means, then, explain what Brian Wilson's music and your imagined Robert Johnson's reaction to the Stones have to do with Ditko's art being servile to objectivist propaganda.



He made a comic about how happy he is?

You a fan of the hardworking Bolsheviks labor camps?



I don't even look at Steve Ditko's work. I'm just glad he gets to spend his life doing what he wants, creating the comics he wants, and glad his work exists. Why are you so full of bile that you don't recognize something objectively positive like that?

The more bile you spew, the more you make it clear that it's not Ayn Rand's thoughts that are the problem, it's your inability to see what others see. That's on you, not Rand or Ditko or anyone else. Their work and its value exists independent of anything you say or do, regardless of how many swear words and insults you use.





He pays for their time and effort with the money he creates by making comics. Good thing there are enough people who like his art that he can afford to do so, no? Would you rather he lives his life like Orson Welles, spending decades waiting for someone to give him command of a small army of employees so he can make all the movies he wants at no cost to himself? Ditko puts pen to paper and creates what he wants. Why doesn't he splash "co-creator of Spider-Man" on every cover he draws if he's so desperately needing of others.



The part that you're not smart enough to see that he's invested his time where he wants and it's paid for his living his whole life? When was the last time you spent eight hours doing exactly what you want to do most with your life?



How do you recognize A is A without comparing it to B, C, D, F...?



Brian Wilson spent months developing the middle section of "Good Vibrations", a song which takes three and a half minutes to listen to and most people dismiss because "it's the Beach Boys." It's what he chose to invest his time on and, unlike most months of his life, it still pays off today. Mick and Keef have been together almost twice as long as Robert Johnson was ever alive, but doing his handful of songs gave them a life Sir Jagger never would have found in the London School of Economics. It's what they chose to invest their time in, almost 50 years now.

I also mentioned Carl Barks and Elzie Segar for a reason, because of what *they* invested their time in.

Time is finite. When it's gone, there's no more. How much do you have left and what are you making of what you have?

Obviously if you've actually made something and have a real sense of how much time is expended doing it, your answer will be different than someone who hasn't. It creates a distinction between things which people who sneer at time won't notice.

It's a good thing you've a plenty supply of bile. Me, I'm picking up good vibrations.



He wants to make comics. He makes comics. He was doing that five years ago, ten years ago, fifteen years ago, twenty years ago, thirty years ago, forty years ago... When was the last time you spent eight hours doing exactly what you want to do with your life on Earth?

So you're a fan of the hardworking Bolsheviks, then.



So you agree that Randian thinking is inherently stupid, then.

Can anybody provide Charles some subtitles?

What's one day in the life of Ivan Denisovitch? He has 3,652 more, three extra for leap years. No wonder you're so dismissive of other peoples' time.

If we're delving into Steve Ditko's personal business, the obvious question would be whether or not he receives Social Security (as Ayn Rand did) or has used Medicare.

Hey, whacking off is a hard job, and to do it 8 hours straight is impossible.

2 x Viagra, if there is any truth in advertising.

Wasn't Robert Johnson a hard-drinking ladies man? I imagine that he would have been an admirer of the Rolling Stones and would have appreciated their take on the blues. It would have been better if he could have survived and profited more from the music himself, of course, while we are speculating on What If stories.

At some point, surely your elbow would break.

Yes, you're dismissive of logic and I'm dismissive of doodling.

Sounds to me like Chris Staros needs to get Ditko and Alan Moore together on a conference call.

You have no idea what doodling is. It's just something to bitch about like everything else in your life. Like you don't have enough already. You're incapable of seeing any value or virtue in, not only someone who earns his living the way he chooses, but that others find joy in it as well. Even in a 'live and let live' way, you can't avoid pouring contempt - which is all that you seem to have - on people who go a different way.

You have no idea what parallels are. He's not talking about Ditko. He's talking about you and how you flounder from one topic to five or six others when you've lost an argument and have no further point to make.

Yeah, he's such a numbskull, lecturing me while having nothing but contempt for everything and everyone he disagrees with (including me, right now, in this thread), yet he just keeps piling hypocrisy upon hypocrisy. Baffling how clueless he is. I hope he keeps going, though, because it's entertaining. Tom was certainly right about that.

You're projecting your own willful blindness. I support your right to invest your time condemning an elderly cartoonist for the crime of not spending decades of his life the way you wanted instead of talking about any of a dozen other things you surely find more enlightening; more worthwhile to express and communicate.

Apparently you have nothing except venom to offer one of your "favorites." Gee, I'd hate to think what you'd say about someone you never liked, and apparently I don't have to worry that you'd find more fruitful uses of your time.

You posted a link to an article, dipstick, and I responded to that article. If you care to address anything I've actually said, please do. Other than that, it's rather condescending that you think so little of the elderly that one shouldn't criticize their views, as if they're just too feeble to think for themselves. I rank Ditko's thinking above yours if that makes you feel better. Read a book when you feel like turning on the radio. It'll help you create good things.

"Garbage", "simple-minded", "idiotic religion", "garbage", "makes me sad", "immoral beliefs of a nitwit", "absolute bullshit", "it's just something else to ignore in life..." These are your responses. Apparently you *can't* ignore this in life. That's not healthy.



I've addressed the bile and narcissism that makes you feel your sadness worth expressing. Since there's no content to your expressions, what else is there to respond to?



I'm pretty sure you were hurling bile just as much when Ditko was younger. He's spent the intervening time doing what he wants. You, you use the word "stupid" a lot. Um, ok.



Since Ditko's thinking is "something else to ignore in life" and you have no interest in how artists divide their time, how do you compare the thoughts of complete strangers?



What does that even mean? Should I turn on the radio when I feel like reading a book?



Do you know anything about creating anything? The last time I mentioned Robert Johnson on this site, I wrote what became the basis for a short essay appearing on the title page of my new book. A story I wrote in the Gutters once upon a time has been revised to become the only pre-enlistment piece in the book (except for some of the jokes). I'm halfway through the next book (non-fiction) and I've even gotten several thousand words written lately for my next book (fiction) in addition to Taking Care of Business, showing up every day, etc.

Granted I don't spend a lot of time writing "shit", "blinkered thought", "said shit", "inherently contradictory and immorally stupid", "inherently stupid", "numbskull". That's what you're here to write. You have nothing else to offer.

The question still stands, when was the last time you spent eight hours doing exactly what you want to do with your life on Earth?

Typing lines of letters on a page, then paying to have the pages bound in a book doesn't make you worth a shit, just narcissistic, even if you've spent all of your time in that government-subsidized existence thinking really hard about how to craft "all work and no play makes Chris a dull boy." Some of us actually read books in our free time, recognizing that we're no Kant or Marx. You have to be exposed to real thinking to know what it is. That's why Rand is popular with teenagers.



'if P, then Q' is not the same as 'if Q, then P.'

Consider: 'If you're a rich man, then you have a $100' is true, but 'if you have a $100, then you're a rich man' is not.

Now, you try:

Is 'if you feel like turning on the radio, read a book' the same as your interpretation of 'if you feel like reading a book, turn on the radio'? (Not listening to talk radio will help you here.)

Says the person whose opinion of Steve Ditko wouldn't be the slightest bit different if Ditko had died forty years ago. Does he have any family you want to get rid of too while you're at it?



If neither P nor Q have anything to do with a topic and both are seemingly senseless, then they effectively interchangeable until proven otherwise. The burden of proving "If you feel like turning on the radio, read a book" is not effectively interchangeable from "if you feel like reading a book, turn on the radio" is on you when introducing both concepts to a discussion of time division. You are saying "if you feel like doing one thing, do another" with no justification other than because saying so is the guiding principle of your life at this moment.

Instead of, y'know, saying "good for him" and moving on with your life.



The answer would have been 'yes' until you throw in 'talk radio' like it has something to do with something. "Radio", "book", "radio", "talk radio", there's no obvious line of connection being drawn for me. When I want radio, I only listen to a handful of music stations on Sirius XM, so I defer to your superior knowledge of it and invite further explanation and elaboration.

I assume there's a lot of talk radio employees you would happily condemn to have died 40 years ago if you could, in addition to Steve Ditko. Just think of how much bile you'd have saved up over those decades.

Since I feel like I'm tricking a gradeschoolers out of his lunch money, how about we get back on topic:



Has Ditko's artwork improved in 40 years? Have his ideas changed at all? If anything, it's all cruder, blander and more simplistic. It's like looking at the development of communism from Marx to Stalin. I admire Marx, whereas you prefer the hardworking, alpha-masculine Stalin, when the means begin to justify the end, because content doesn't matter (work, work, work, who cares for what?).

How many would you put to death in your love of Ditko's later work? Answer this! My negativity would only take out a radio station, but you would slaughter 15 million. Goober, goober, spittle.

You can choose to not be negative in the first place. Your view flat-out opposes 40 years of Steve Ditko's existence and negates any validity for disagreement. You don't even have to look at Steve Ditko's work to be positive about it or the fact that he does it because it's what he wants to do or that other people find validity in him doing it.

Anyone else you feel the urge to cleanse from humanity's tabletops while you're at it? Since they don't live their lives exactly the way you want for the reasons you want, and 'live and let live' isn't really your thing. Steve Ditko had to work for forty years to give you something to whine about for forty years but least he supports a society that lets you both prosper. What do you offer that compares? "Shit", "blinkered thought", "said shit", "inherently contradictory and immorally stupid", "inherently stupid", "numbskull", etc.

As I said, content doesn't matter to you.

Says the guy whose content is a dozen variations of the word "shit". But at least you diminished 40 years of a man's life in the process, repeatedly, and in ways that many people of common decency would refrain from doing. I guess you're not asked to give a lot of eulogies.

I just finished writing an obit for someone. The deceased's family asked me to be honest but kind.

Some people are not worthy of kindness in death, others are not worthy of picking of nits upon their passing. Fortunately for me I didn't know the person who passed, so i had to fashion a work from what they reported.

But I have written four obits. 3 people were mostly strangers. Those were easy.

But if Charles is asked by the Ditko next of kin to write an obit, he won't have time to bitch about the man's life, all he can do is pass links to pages of work. There are a shit ton of them and they speak for Ditko's life.

"But at least you diminished 40 years of a man's life in the process, repeatedly"

I haven't said one thing about the man's life. Just like you, I don't know much about the guy other than the comics he's made and his hand-written statements. All I can say and have said is that the past 40 years of his comics have been terrible due to the cultish influence of an idiotic ideology. You're the one who started all the ad hominem bullshit in this thread. I'm not the one confusing the worth of art with the worth of a human. He's probably a real decent guy to his local barista.

We're talking about Ditko's life only as it relates to the content of the article that YOU posted the link to. I know you read Mark Evanier's blog. He also had some not-entirely-nice things to say about Ditko in light of that same article, and he actually worked with the man.

You got a link to that, Allen?

never mind, found it

Haha!

He's spent his life making his work. His work is absolute bullshit (according to you). If you can't see any connection between his life and his work, you have no business calling anyone else stupid, not that this ever stops you.



"Shit", "blinkered thought", "said shit", "inherently contradictory and immorally stupid", "inherently stupid", "numbskull", "Garbage", "simple-minded", "idiotic religion", "garbage", "makes me sad", "immoral beliefs of a nitwit", "absolute bullshit", "it's just something else to ignore in life..."

There's your content. It's not my fault you choose that form to communicate it. You could have spent the same amount of time bowing towards Saudi Arabia in the name of one God with better intent, execution and results. Or just watch one of those movies you like so much.

Mark Evanier spent two days with Steve Ditko in 1970 and apparently *didn't* spend two days with him sometime over the next decade. This makes him your primary source on Steve Ditko over the last forty years because...? How many people did you know 40 years ago who could judge the quality of your life's work right now? At least Ditko's correspondence with Dave Sim took place this century.

You confirm my point: "I'm not the one confusing the worth of art with the worth of a human."





Minus the arguments, context, sentences and all the, you know (well, you don't know), content. If Texan parlance offends your eyes, pluck them out.



One more time and then I'm done: does this matter to you when you're dismissing Marx? I haven't said anything about Ditko's sex life. I know you can't see what a hypocrite you are, or how you're not understanding anything we're talking about here, so I'll let you slide on back into your solipsistic hole.

You confirm my point, you are incapable of recognizing anything in art or humanity that falls outside your pre-set Marxist definitions and you blame others for your own willful blindness.





All designed to get you from one "shit" to the next, which they did. Any line of thought that would have included a "good for him" or "I support his right to..." is utterly removed from your viewpoint, or how much "shit" you use to communicate it. Common decency would suggest not going out of your way to insult people who don't think like you, but no one ever accused you of having too much common decency.



So it's suddenly ok to pull rank based on your region of origin? Is that why Lenin hired a guy with a Georgian accent to take orders and accomplish tasks and remove eyeballs?

His choice. I'm pretty sure there's more to do in Manhattan than stew in a little cubbyhole.

Does it matter? He still spent his whole life doing what he wanted to do, only to wake up one morning and discover that he was a cockroach on Charles' heel.

I guess he didn't question the inverse proportionality of radios and books enough, or something.

Reece is only judging the content of the work. If that's all Ditko has spent his life doing is drawing cartoons, that's entirely another issue. Not surprising you can't separate the two, however.


And again...


How do you know? Was there something in the correspondence with Sim that supports this? The quote I pulled from the Post article seems to indicate he'd rather be doing something else. Probably doubtful he wants to do something more personally rewarding, though. His being a Randian, I'm sure he only means something more lucrative. By which, I mean without having to give any more of his person to the work than what's on the page, as pursuing any Spider-Man glory (and money) would likely entail. "You can't keep the fortune without the fame," and all that.

You all must be worn out from this heated argument. Let me offer a bit of refreshment.

http://retrocrush.com/archive/spidey/

Retrocrush has been kind enough to put all 38 or so of Ditko's Spider-Man covers online. I wish they were a bit larger, but you can still see Ditko at what may be his best. If nothing else, the sheer range of visual concepts on display show why the guy is worth arguing about.

If he were doing that, he'd be more specific than gesturing vaguely at the last 40 years of Ditko's life and saying "shit" a lot. Naming his art might help, citing pieces of artwork, comparison and contrast, all of these are tools to judge the content of the work. How does this decade of Ditko's work compare with that decade of Ditko's work? Its mere existence en toto causes him to emit one swear word after another like Sonny Corleone discovering that one of the Tattaglias is still loose.

And where did you do any of that?

Any of what? Write a review? Is Ken Parille your pen name or something?

Steve Ditko turns down major media corporations, and they have no choice but to sit back and take it. He's not trying to make money or get famous, he's just quietly doing what he wants to do and lets his work speak for itself. Every leftist fiber of your being screams that it is impossible to do this because the major media corporations are, like, our owners, or something.

For forty years, Ditko has been doing exactly what you claim to be impossible. No wonder you seek to eradicate any trace of him.

I'll grant you the latter, insofar as fame generally involves an encroachment upon one's privacy. He was certainly interested in having enough name recognition in order to find work.

As to the former, however, please support your assertion that a known Randian is not interested in making money. He's probably settled into the reality that he can only make a certain amount of money with the type of material he does (plus, he's likely been receiving Social Security payments for almost twenty years now), but as that quote pulled from the NYP seems to indicate, he'd apparently like to make more.



Reece ever said anything like that? Bungee on a bad day, maybe. Ted, sure. But Reece? We rag on your lack of reading comprehension skills, and then you go and prove us right.



The first sentence seems like a logical extension of your previous assertion, which is based solely on your lack of reading comprehension skills. The second is probably the wildest of your egregious stretches of reality that I've ever witnessed.

I resemble that remark.

Not one leftist fiber of my being has any problem believing that it's possible to hunch yourself in a corner beneath a single bare swinging light bulb and fire off crazy screeds about Ayn Rand.

In fact, my leftist being frequently chuckles at the fact that you can go to pretty much any hackerspace or libertarian convention, throw a rock, and hit three people who are doing just that. Ditko isn't just believable to liberals; he's a sad and hilarious cliché.

You must admit that you are unusually pliant towards our corporate overlords.

My only quibble with the original statement is that I would have referred to all corporate overlords, not just those media ones to whom I am occasionally pliant: "Can you believe those corporate jerks at Disney? They screw creators out of copyright, they buy their own legislation, and now I have to spend an extra day at Disney World every time I go there because they keep making it so damn fun!"

"he's a sad and hilarious cliché."

Allen and Ceci are right. Ditko's a perfect capitalist patsy.

"Ditko has been doing exactly what you claim to be impossible. No wonder you seek to eradicate any trace of him."

What the fuck is this? I love Ditko's art. He's one of my favorites. And when did I ever suggest it's impossible to make slavishly pro-capital art under capitalism while making little money for it? That's just the artistic version of workers voting Republican -- like those guys who call in to talk radio, concerned about being fair to the rich. (Confer: Thomas Frank's Pity the Billionaire.)

I once talked to Larry King. But we talked about Duke Ziebert's.

Larry King needs to be eradicated.

He is pretty old so just wait a little while.

I get the feeling that if I knew what was going on here, I might say: leave me out of this!

But I don't . . .

Do you agree that Larry King needs to be eradicated?

That depends . . .

I thought King had retired from the planet . . .

Compared to who? Stan Lee? Jack Kirby? Artie Simek?

Will Eisner? Dan DeCarlo? Carl Barks? Harvey Kurtzman? Art Spiegleman? Robert Crumb? Jack Cole?

In a nation where Tom Cruise and Axl Rose are possible, the inability of major corporations to publicly inconvenience an old man does not instill trembling at their mighty power.

Isn't Fox News' modus operandi scaring old white people???

It took John Travolta decades before someone handed him a pot of money and said come back with Battlefield: Earth: The Movie. But he persevered.

Garry Trudeau doesn't give interviews. The media doesn't seem to intrude on him though. He just goes to work every day for 40 years, and created a job for another guy almost as long.

And there's that floundering again, signalling loudly how completely you've lost.

So let's see if I have this straight:

Stan Lee is not a perfect capitalist patsy. If you're looking for a perfect capitalist patsy, Stan Lee is not your man. Stay far away from Stan Lee's work. Steve Ditko's the one you want.

Jack Kirby is not a perfect capitalist patsy. If you're looking for a perfect capitalist patsy, Jack Kirby is not your man. Stay far away from Jack Kirby's work. Steve Ditko's is the one you want.

Stan Lee+Jack Kirby are not the perfect capitalist patsies. If you're looking for perfect capitalist patsies, Stan Lee+Jack Kirby are not your men. Stay far away from Stan Lee+Jack Kirby's work. Steve Ditko's is the one you want.

If they want capitalist patsies, Disney/Marvel is missing quite an opportunity.

Would you like some tartar sauce for your flounder?

Nobody said he was or wasn't, one way or the other. This is you presenting a false choice to deflect away from the actual subject: Steve Ditko.

The others think it's because you're floundering. I honestly think, given your posting history, that you might have had a stroke at some point. You deserve our pity, not our scorn.

Tom has started dating so soon after the divorce?

Tom Cruise is Axl Rose:

Tom Cruise is so narcissistic he could both be Axl Rose and be dating Axl Rose.

Truer words have never been spoken.

You always say this, and you never have it straight.

Truer words have now been spoken.

spambots make more coherent points than you.

Breitbart? Seriously?

Coming from someone whose argument finally loses all the "shit" to be summed up as "Ditko's a perfect capitalist patsy", I'd say spambots are more sentient than you.

Hey, at least you mentioned Ditko. Good job.