quote:Originally posted by Alan Coil: The last continuous work that Ditko did for Marvel was in 1966, over 40 years ago.
Nah. Ditko did a string of ROM issues in the 1980s and when the heck did SPEEDBALL come out, late 80s or early 90s?
Mike
Rom---18 issues, 1985-6. Speedball---11 issues, 1988-9. Not a lot, but enough. I concede the point.
Posts: 544 | From: Southeast Michigan | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
You obviously interpreted Peter David’s initial response to be evasive. I think it fair to say it didn’t address all the issues it could have, but it was, after all, just his initial response. I think he was mainly responding to the suggestion he might not want to ‘advertise’ he had the art, which David was surprised at because he had conducted every aspect of this purchase publicly & in good faith to this point (including referring to his purchase without a second thought on this messageboard). I’m not saying it was inappropriate for Larsen to comeback with some further questions – possibly even pointed questions trying to get him to address the underlying issues about purchasing possibly stolen art. I do think Larsen’s overly aggressive response at this early stage was unnecessary, counterproductive &, frankly, surprising.
quote:Peter David's response is, quite literally, "I didn't buy it in secret". That's the sum total of it. Nothing on whether he knew that Ditko didn't sell his art or had any knowledge that Ditko art on the market was likely or possibly stolen. Nothing about legal ownership questions of Ditko's original art, or what the ethical questions are of buying art that was originally stolen or misappropriated from the original owner.
Exactly, nothing one way or the other on those points. So Larsen could have elaborated & prompted David to address those issues. There was no need to jump to accusations that David knowingly participated in the theft of a fellow creator’s work. Lawson pointed this out and Larsen backed down, but he backed down from a pointlessly aggressive comment he made to David’s first response on this matter.
quote:I don't think it's out of order for Larsen to get a bit more confrontational about the subject
A bit more confrontational? He went into wrap drive!
quote:…and I think it's unfair for you or anyone else to take his reaction to PAD's non-response and presume bad intentions on Larsen's part.
So it’s okay to presume things on David’s part, but not Larsen’s?
Larsen’s comments were blatantly unfair, not just ‘a little snippy’, as you described. As David said himself: “To use [Larsen’s] tactics of distortion, I could cite [Larsen’s] comment about how I shouldn't "advertise" that I own the artwork by saying, "Oh, so you're saying that obtaining artwork that you claim is stolen is acceptable as long as you keep it to yourself."
quote:PAD's initial response said nothing about whether Ditko's art was originally stolen, whether PAD knew it might be stolen, or what ethical or moral concerns PAD might have if it was originally stolen.
And if Larsen, following this initial response, had taken the opportunity to query David about these issues & to prompt David in a fair & reasonable way, you might have a good point here.
But he didn’t, and you don’t.
Posts: 1011 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Look, no one is claiming Mr. David is criminal OR a nazi.
Nope. Nobody called him a nazi, but Larsen did imply he was a criminal. And you've been supporting Larsen's statements.
If by saying he may have unknowingly came into possession of stolen material, AND saying any one of us could find ourselves in that same position, yes, if that's blatantly calling Mr. David a criminal.
I'm such a dick.
Posts: 5005 | From: Cleveland Heights, Ohio | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stevv: I’m not saying it was inappropriate for Larsen to comeback with some further questions – possibly even pointed questions trying to get him to address the underlying issues about purchasing possibly stolen art. I do think Larsen’s overly aggressive response at this early stage was unnecessary, counterproductive &, frankly, surprising.
Larsen’s comments were blatantly unfair, not just ‘a little snippy’, as you described. As David said himself: “To use [Larsen’s] tactics of distortion, I could cite [Larsen’s] comment about how I shouldn't "advertise" that I own the artwork by saying, "Oh, so you're saying that obtaining artwork that you claim is stolen is acceptable as long as you keep it to yourself."
And if Larsen, following this initial response, had taken the opportunity to query David about these issues & to prompt David in a fair & reasonable way, you might have a good point here.
But he didn’t, and you don’t.
Why is Larsen the only one who has to abide by Miss Manners' Guide to Message Board Posting?
Has Peter David disputed in this thread Larsen's claim that the Ditko art in question was probably stolen? Has he denied knowing that Ditko doesn't sell his art and any of the early Marvel stuff was likely stolen from the Marvel offices? Has he tried to substantively address the moral or ethical questions about buying stolen property, even if the original theft was many years and multiple owners ago? Your PAD quote is just a debating trick that seeks to avoid the question and put the questioner on the defensive. Go back and read PAD's 1st post after Larsen and Lawson have their go round.
PAD - "I've got some Ditko artwork." Larsen - "You might not want to advertise that because it was probably stolen." PAD - "But I publicly bought it from a major auction house." Larsen - "So it's okay to buy stolen property as long as plenty of people see you do it?" PAD - "You're being snotty and mean to me."
Larsen brought up an issue and PAD has not just avoided but refused to deal with that issue. Instead he just attacked Larsen for bringing it up. I mean, for pete's sake, go back and read the Larsen-Lawson exchanges. Do those read like he's out to "get" Peter David? Just because PAD started playing the victim instead of dealing with the issues Larsen raised, doesn't mean that Larsen's doing anything wrong. Frankly the idea that it's okay for Larsen to question PAD's response, but he should have been "nicer" about it is silly.
You and PAD are the one's making assumptions about why Larsen is saying things, instead of simply dealing with what he is saying.
Mike
Posts: 1592 | From: Waterloo, Iowa, United States | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I find it far more interesting that Larsen is being disengenious about the fact that he's attacking Peter, than the fact that he's doing so. To me that indicates that the presenting issue that Larsen raises isn't as important to him as a moral issue so much as it's a cudgel with which to beat Pete.
For reasons I've cited earlier I think it reads far more like a smarmy game of "Gotcha" than a platform for examining a serious issue. Which isn't to say that it's not a serious issue to examine, so much as to say that it was brought up as an excuse to throw around a little bit of slime.
Posts: 2106 | From: Basra, Maine | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why is Larsen the only one who has to abide by Miss Manners' Guide to Message Board Posting?
He obviously doesn't; straw-man argument.
quote:PAD - "I've got some Ditko artwork." Larsen - "You might not want to advertise that because it was probably stolen." PAD - "But I publicly bought it from a major auction house." Larsen - "So it's okay to buy stolen property as long as plenty of people see you do it?" PAD - "You're being snotty and mean to me."
Let’s apply a fairness filter to your summary:
quote:PAD - "I've got some Ditko artwork." Larsen - "You might not want to advertise that because it was probably stolen." PAD - "But I publicly bought it from a major auction house." Larsen - "you're saying it's perfectly ethical to knowingly buy stolen goods. You think that the ends justify the means. I don't think that what you've done is something to crow about. You clearly feel otherwise" PAD - " It appears to me from your response you're less interested in morality than you are about sniping at me."
See how this works?
I reread the Larsen-Lawson exchange and I don’t think this helps your case. Larsen back-pedals & is inconsistent. I think Larsen was genuine in what he said to Lawson about not dropping PAD’s work – somewhat to Lawson’s exasperation. As Lawson said: ‘I was curious to see if Erik Larsen would back off his fairly serious accusation with a little poking, which he did….Erik Larsen, having accused David of knowingly participating in theft from a fellow comics creator, has since said, "Peter bought some art by an artist whose work he likes from a book that meant something to him. That's all.”’ If that’s all, why the original indignation? As IvanJim says, somewhere here Larsen's being disingenuous.
quote: Frankly the idea that it's okay for Larsen to question PAD's response, but he should have been "nicer" about it is silly
Your presentation of my argument as a plea for niceness is fatuous. I’m saying Larsen’s petulant tone, implication of criminal behaviour, assumptions, distortions & loaded language, were unnecessary & counterproductive. I’m honestly not sure why you struggle to get this.
Posts: 1011 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
If you like Ditko's Spider-Man--his Blue Beetle is the closest thing you'll come to that. Blue Beetle had a lot of the same cool moves that Spidey did.
Captain Atom was pretty nice--I wish I had more issues of it.
I like the Question and Mr. A because they're such a departure from typical superhero fare. Mr. A that much moreso (I asked Robin Snyder what the "A" stood for--he said "Answer" without hesitation--which gave me a "well, duh" moment--but I thought made it that much cooler).
The Creeper was pretty nifty as well,
I just wish there were more books that he did on an ongoing basis. He really built something with Spider-Man but he didn't get to do that on anything else. Spider-Man was his longest run on any title.
quote:Originally posted by stevv: I reread the Larsen-Lawson exchange and I don’t think this helps your case. Larsen back-pedals & is inconsistent. I think Larsen was genuine in what he said to Lawson about not dropping PAD’s work – somewhat to Lawson’s exasperation. As Lawson said: ‘I was curious to see if Erik Larsen would back off his fairly serious accusation with a little poking, which he did….Erik Larsen, having accused David of knowingly participating in theft from a fellow comics creator, has since said, "Peter bought some art by an artist whose work he likes from a book that meant something to him. That's all.”’ If that’s all, why the original indignation? As IvanJim says, somewhere here Larsen's being disingenuous.
quote: Frankly the idea that it's okay for Larsen to question PAD's response, but he should have been "nicer" about it is silly
Your presentation of my argument as a plea for niceness is fatuous. I’m saying Larsen’s petulant tone, implication of criminal behaviour, assumptions, distortions & loaded language, were unnecessary & counterproductive. I’m honestly not sure why you struggle to get this.
I'm a little brother--and, as a little brother, I've learned what to say and how to say it in order to get a response. Did I put it in such a way to get a rise? Sure--and it worked. Was it a topic that I thought deserved to be brought to light? Yes, I did--and it was.
Could I have put it in a nicer way? Absolutely--and that was what I started out doing and the response I received was evasive and unsatisfactory.
As I did research and acquired more information my tone and attitude changed. If I backpedaled it was because of the acquisition of new information. I'm not the kind of guy that sends in more troops if more troops will simply make things worse.
But you're interpreting what I said rather than quoting me directly and in doing so you're distorting the truth. You're being misleading and hypocritical.
quote:Originally posted by Erik Larsen: I'm a little brother--and, as a little brother, I've learned what to say and how to say it in order to get a response. Did I put it in such a way to get a rise? Sure--and it worked. Was it a topic that I thought deserved to be brought to light? Yes, I did--and it was.
Could I have put it in a nicer way? Absolutely--and that was what I started out doing and the response I received was evasive and unsatisfactory.
As I did research and acquired more information my tone and attitude changed. If I backpedaled it was because of the acquisition of new information. I'm not the kind of guy that sends in more troops if more troops will simply make things worse.
But you're interpreting what I said rather than quoting me directly and in doing so you're distorting the truth. You're being misleading and hypocritical.
What he said. And I think that's enough of me arguing about other people arguing.
Mike
Posts: 1592 | From: Waterloo, Iowa, United States | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
A problem I’ve had with Mike’s debate with me was that he introduced the issue of whether David addressed questions concerning the legal & ethical ownership of Ditko’s art. That issue's valid, but was not what I was addressing. I was saying your post (the one I labelled ‘Post 4’) was unnecessary, & counterproductive to prompting David to respond to the very issues Mike was so interested in. Nothing you or Mike has said has contradicted this.
quote:I'm a little brother--and, as a little brother, I've learned what to say and how to say it in order to get a response. Did I put it in such a way to get a rise? Sure--and it worked…Could I have put it in a nicer way? Absolutely--and that was what I started out doing and the response I received was evasive and unsatisfactory.
The response you received was the first comment from David on this issue. Did your reply to that response really work in getting David to address the issues you & Mike feel are important? No, according to Mike: “Has David disputed in this thread Larsen's claim that the Ditko art in question was probably stolen? Has he denied knowing that Ditko doesn't sell his art and any of the early Marvel stuff was likely stolen from the Marvel offices? Has he tried to substantively address the moral or ethical questions about buying stolen property…” So you weren’t successful in that regard. Why? Because (agree with his reaction or not) David thought you were getting at him with your ‘snotty’ post. Had you addressed the questions in a straightforward way, David wouldn’t have a reason to adopt this position, & everything would be clearer. I can honestly tell you I was surprised at your change in tone at that early stage. I have no knowledge of any baggage you & David may have, but when I read your “I don't think that what you've done is something to crow about” post, I thought: "Cool. Fight comin’ on!" Why did I think that? Because them’s were fightin’ words, Erik! Hence, I found David’s conclusion - that you were as interested in a fight with him as you were in the underlying issues – understandable.
quote:You're interpreting what I said rather than quoting me directly and in doing so you're distorting the truth. You're being misleading and hypocritical."
I’ll address accusations of hypocrisy if you can be more specific. Whether or not I’m being misleading is begging the question. As for: "you're interpreting what I said rather than quoting me directly." I quoted and interpreted what you said. As you did with Peter David. As Mike did with David & me. I’m not sure whose interpretation you were expecting me to give you.
quote:As I did research and acquired more information my tone and attitude changed. If I backpedaled it was because of the acquisition of new information. I'm not the kind of guy that sends in more troops if more troops will simply make things worse.
Fair enough.
As someone with five older brothers & a big sister, I certainly don’t want to be too quick to judge a fellow little brother.
Posts: 1011 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
A problem I’ve had with Mike’s debate with me was that he introduced the issue of whether David addressed questions concerning the legal & ethical ownership of Ditko’s art. That issue's valid, but was not what I was addressing. I was saying your post (the one I labelled ‘Post 4’) was unnecessary, & counterproductive to prompting David to respond to the very issues Mike was so interested in. Nothing you or Mike has said has contradicted this.
quote:I'm a little brother--and, as a little brother, I've learned what to say and how to say it in order to get a response. Did I put it in such a way to get a rise? Sure--and it worked…Could I have put it in a nicer way? Absolutely--and that was what I started out doing and the response I received was evasive and unsatisfactory.
The response you received was the first comment from David on this issue. Did your reply to that response really work in getting David to address the issues you & Mike feel are important? No, according to Mike: “Has David disputed in this thread Larsen's claim that the Ditko art in question was probably stolen? Has he denied knowing that Ditko doesn't sell his art and any of the early Marvel stuff was likely stolen from the Marvel offices? Has he tried to substantively address the moral or ethical questions about buying stolen property…” So you weren’t successful in that regard. Why? Because (agree with his reaction or not) David thought you were getting at him with your ‘snotty’ post. Had you addressed the questions in a straightforward way, David wouldn’t have a reason to adopt this position, & everything would be clearer.
I probably shouldn't do this...but why should Erik Larsen be soley or even primarily responsible for the quality of Peter David's responses? Why should the tender sensibilities of Peter David set the limits of acceptable commentary by which Larsen or any other poster must abide? It's not like Peter David is some sort of delicate flower. We're talking about a man with a long history in print and on line of being cleverly snarky and insulting (usually toward quite deserving targets).
I look at it this way. Is Erik Larsen raising a legitimate issue? Has Peter David addressed that issue in a substantive way? If the answer to the first question is "yes" and to the second is "no" (which you seem to somewhat agree with), why are you putting the burden on Larsen that it's his job to draw a substantive response out of PAD? Why are you more focused on Larsen not being polite enough when he got a non-substantive response, instead of PAD trying to avoid the issue Larsen was bringing up?
You seem to think PAD's playing the victim card shifts the conversational burden back to Larsen, that it's somehow up to him to placate (?) David. But PAD has used an allegation of bad intentions on Larsen's part to avoid dealing with the issues at hand, while Larsen is the one who's continued to address the subject, even in the face of more confrontational questions and statements. There's no reason David couldn't have sustantively dealt with the Ditko art issues IN ADDITION to accusing Larsen of being out to get him.
Mike
Posts: 1592 | From: Waterloo, Iowa, United States | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Awww, Mike! I thought we were done! (Deep breath) Okay then…
“Why should Erik Larsen be responsible for the quality of David’s responses?” He’s not. He’s responsible for his own responses, though. Hence, if I think he’s made a response that was unnecessarily confrontational and, on balance, counterproductive, I’m entitled to point that out.
“Why should the tender sensibilities of Peter David set the limits of acceptable commentary by which Larsen or any other poster must abide?” David’s sensibilities, tender or otherwise, are not the issue I was raising. You can raise this issue if you like.
“There's no reason David couldn't have substantively dealt with the Ditko art issues IN ADDITION to accusing Larsen of being out to get him.” Again, my argument doesn’t depend on there being such a reason. But, oh well… Consider:
Maybe David feels that responding to such an attack (as he saw it) only encourages Larsen, or others, to continue to try to engage David with such 'tactics of distortion'. By rewarding people being ‘snotty & aggressive’, he only encourages people to be snotty & aggressive. Or...
Maybe he considers he has satisfactorily addressed the issues. He has a response in page 3 of this thread (which begins “Let's keep three things in mind:…”) and another one over the page, where he does address the ‘I have Ditko art’ matter. You may not find his responses satisfactory, but he may feel his position is clear. (And please don’t waste time replying with criticisms of David’s responses – I do not care; that is not my point.) Or...
Maybe David’s completely, utterly wrong to own Ditko art. Maybe he hasn’t responded because he has no reasonable response. Maybe he thinks the ends justify the means, that it’s ethical to knowingly buy stolen goods. Maybe he’s just Evil…But, even if we take this worst possible view of David, it does not change one iota the validity of my point, expressed in this reply to Larsen: “…agree with his reaction or not, David thought [or feigned] you were getting at him with your ‘snotty’ post. Had you addressed the questions in a straightforward way, David wouldn’t have a reason to adopt this position and everything would be clearer.”
I don’t think David was intending to be evasive in his first post. He interpreted the prior Larsen post to him as suggesting he got the Ditko art in a shady manner, and he was just saying “Not at all…I have nothing to hide!” Larsen then jumped to ‘Have at Thee!’ for no reason. But even if you take the most cynical view of David’s alleged lack of response to the Ditko issue, Larsen’s early jump to an aggressive approach was still counterproductive.
Okay, that’s about it. I’ve had enough of this debate. I’ve enjoyed it, but...
quote:Originally posted by MBunge: I think that's enough of me arguing about other people arguing. Mike
quote:Originally posted by Alias: I seem to recall Stan selling an entire issue of Ditko Spider-Man for a pretty hefty figure, so he is probably a poor example in this case. Furthermore, Ditko surely did as much "writing" on a lot, perhaps most of the Spidey's.
And autographed scripts surely have some value - part of which is due to the work of the artist.
Contrary to statements here, there are precious few facts in evidence regarding this subject. Until some court settles the question, which no court has, the questions remain, no matter how poorly they might be asked.
There are no legal facts in evidence regarding the provinence of most artwork from the era under "discussion" here. I hope this will be settled. I hope that reasonable discussion will continue and the various points will be examined.
As much as I love a good spat, I don't think this spat between Erik and Peter is a "good" one. I hope y'all can chill out a little and stick to the questions/views.
I repeat, this issue is not settled morally, let alone legally. And it never will be if the discussions go the way this one has went. Which is a shame.
hang on are you trying to say Ditko scripted the books?? Oh please!!
-------------------- "It's terrible to see someone being beaten up by the English language." - Martin Amis on George W Bush. Posts: 385 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Stan Lee has acknowledged that in many issues Steve Ditko came up with the story and drew it with almost no input from Stan, and then Stan came in and wrote all the dialogue (sometimes radically changing the intent of what Steve had drawn). That's why Steve is credited with story as well as art in some of the books.
Unlike the situation with Jack Kirby, this isn't particularly disputed. Certainly not by Stan who has been clear about Steve's contributions.
Posts: 2106 | From: Basra, Maine | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Stan Lee has acknowledged that in many issues Steve Ditko came up with the story and drew it with almost no input from Stan, and then Stan came in and wrote all the dialogue (sometimes radically changing the intent of what Steve had drawn). That's why Steve is credited with story as well as art in some of the books.
Unlike the situation with Jack Kirby, this isn't particularly disputed. Certainly not by Stan who has been clear about Steve's contributions.
OH yes agreed -- it's quite well known that Ditko co plotted and plotted many issues. But it was Stan that wrote the dialoge and brought it all to life.
-------------------- "It's terrible to see someone being beaten up by the English language." - Martin Amis on George W Bush. Posts: 385 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I dunno. Stan may have been at the heart of Spider-man, but philosophically Ditko was the soul of the character and his motivations. When Alias said that Ditko did as much writing as Lee, he very specifically put the word "writing" in parenthetical quotations which I think clearly denoted that Ditko came up with the actual story but Stan put the breezy dialogue in. As much as I admire what Stan did with Spider-man, I don't think that the philosophical depth and outlook of the character would have existed if Steve hadn't front loaded it into his stories.
Posts: 2106 | From: Basra, Maine | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Wasn't the reason Ditko left the series because Stan was taking it in one direction and Steve wanted it to go another way? And, if so, certainly Steve had enough to do with the stories to be philosophically invested in them. It wasn't just an illustration job for him, if he so cared about the plot. On the other hand, Stan, being editor as well as writer, had the final say, veto power. So: Ditko plot and direction; StanLieber dialog, plot tweaks, and direction.
posted
Agreed up to a point. It seemed, though, that it was Ditko who was controlling the direction of the book up until Stan became uncomfortable with it. It seemed that when Ditko lost control of over all direction, when Stan actually decided he needed to control that direction, was when Ditko felt he had to leave.
Posts: 2106 | From: Basra, Maine | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Erik Larsen: DC routinely destroyed art. Marvel did not. Marvel didn't throw out art. Marvel stored it and often "fans" (employees, for the most part) pilfered art and kept it for themselves or sold it.
I'm going a bit off-topic here (because what I'm about to say is not about Ditko)... In the book "Streetwise" published by Twomorrows collecting autobiographical short comics by comic veterans, there's this Sal Amendola story in which he tells how he used to "play Robin Hood" with the original art. That is, stealing it from the DC offices and returning it to the authors. (That was in the days when DC was destroying original pages)
I wonder if the same kind of secret salvation of the artwork went on at Marvel. It would be nice to know that some of this stolen art was kinda-sorta not really "stolen" in the end.
End of Off Topic rambling.
On Ditko (back to the original subject): I'm a sucker for his fantasy and horror stuff, printed in Black & White by Pure Imagination. It's amazing. It actually made me like his stuff much more than before.
"On Ditko (back to the original subject): I'm a sucker for his fantasy and horror stuff, printed in Black & White by Pure Imagination. It's amazing. It actually made me like his stuff much more than before."
Same thing with me! I started getting more into Ditko just before these volumes began appearing, but they just cemented it -- I'm now officially a Steve Ditko fan.
Matthew
Posts: 4993 | From: Seattle, WA USA | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A couple years ago I was shown a letter Ditko had recently sent to someone in which he revealed that he no longer had any interest in the subject matter explored in Dr. Strange and thus wouldn't be drawing anything else in that realm, which I assume includes the kind of fantasy and horror stories he did so often and so well in the 1950s and 1960s.
-------------------- James Van Hise Posts: 254 | From: Yucca Valley, CA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
