L.A. TIMES
INTERVIEW
"TRANSCRIPT"
Sunday April 28, 2002
 Earlier this week, a writer for the L.A. Times interviewed me by e-mail concerning Ditko's part in the creation of Spider-Man. Apparently, the Times has moved the publication date from next Sunday to Monday, April 29, and cut it by one-third, so it's possible nothing I contributed will make the final cut. Hopefully, the web site will receive the plug that was offered. Anyhoo, here's some of the questions, and all of the answers...
How long have you been a fan of Ditko's work? What is it about his work that you enjoy, appreciate and/or admire?
I've known I've been a fan of Ditko since I picked up the late '70s Pocket Books collections of Amazing Spider-Man #1-20 (three separate little books in total). I was only 8 years old in 1978, but received both for Christmas.
Ditko's sense of costume design appeals dramatically to a young child. From Spider-Man to the Rogue Gallery of villains, no one has ever created more visually dazzling costumes. It is, first and foremost, a graphic arts medium. One has but to look at how many times his villainous creations have been rehashed and reused in the past 40 years. He was the Barry Bonds of creating villains with dazzling powers and unique, colourful looks. It goes without saying every villain that will be used in any Spider-Man sequels will be taken from those Ditko issues.
Spider-Man will forever appeal to anyone who never felt part of the mainstream (and only the highly superficial ever believe they do belong in such a category). The first page of his first appearance in Amazing Fantasy #15 says it : a man, who values intelligence, respect and compassion, is locked out by those whose character is so weak, they have to surround themselves with false idols (Flash Thompson, in this case) to justify their existence, and receive
validation.
Stan Lee was responsible for the humourous, snappy banter, which made a child like myself feel safe watching him battle such villains (and made me believe I would react the same way). Stan Lee no doubt created the notion of a "kid beset by life's problems", rather than the stereotypical superhero who generally belonged to a group and whose life IMPROVED when he had received/discovered his powers.
But other than that comparatively superficial (but notable) contribution, Stan Lee followed the same formula when plotting those initial episodes (aliens in A.S. #2; mystical origins like Ditko says about Stan's aborted Green Goblin origin; trying to keep the costume of Spider-Man on every page of each issue).
It is my belief that Ditko brought us the first superhero whose life became WORSE when he achieved such grand powers.
Captain America was a weakling who rocketed to great physical strength and national acclaim when he was injected with the Super Serum.
Spider-Man became persecuted by the media, guilt-ridden by the death of his Uncle Ben due to the lack of using his powers responsibly, and forever forced to the sidelines, unable to
incorporate himself into a social group dynamic.
As a child of divorce, I felt from the early age of five that same divorce, that separation from the mainstream that Peter Parker carried like Atlas carried the world. No matter how good I was at sports (and I was 6' 5" and quite athletic), I identified with this part of Peter Parker. Ditko took Lee's initial idea of a "teenager with problems" to a psychological level so far off the radar screen of ANYTHING produced in comics to that point, and this is why Ditko's comics live on today. Taken from his life, the events and people portrayed in his work felt very real in mine.
Visually, Ditko had what most people would consider a cartoony style, but his work was FAR more real than the "photo-realist" comic artists that would appear on the scene in the following 20 years. His was more real because the visual laws defined in his universe were SO real, so consistent, that one suspends disbelief to its maximum. He set the visual rules, and you believed every one.
Ditko deliberately created his human figures as static beings to juxtaposed them against an aerial ballet, played out as battles between Spider-Man and his corps of archenemies.
You can break down every aspect Ditko brought to the series, and all can be identified as revolutionary in the superhero comic to that point; so revolutionary that they have been horrendously imitated in style, but never duplicated in substance.
The Marvel "House Style" of narrative storytelling can be attributed to Steve Ditko and what he developed in Spider-Man. The surface aspects of Stan Lee's plots ("the girl I'm in love with can't know my secret, and I'm torn up about it") and Jack Kirby's smash'em - bash'em visual style have been imitated throughout history, but what resonates, and still does, is Ditko's vision of the true essence of humanity : a loner trapped in a world inhabited by people who don't, and who seemingly have no interest, in understanding him. Ditko's contributions established a pinnacle for all artists whom decided to rise to that challenge of such depth, whether they knew whom was influencing them or not.
 Much of your site is of an appreciative nature, but there also seems to be an activist impulse present, specifically related to the issue of Ditko's creator credit on Spider-Man and other titles. Do you think Ditko's role in the co-creation of Spider-Man (and other Marvel characters) has been marginalized? If so, how do you think that marginalization came about? And, finally, what role do you think you play in helping to restore Ditko to the credit he deserves?
Ditko is now receiving his due credit because, as he believes, true justice will always win out. He deserved this credit 35 years ago and he is receiving it now because, however corrupt or manipulated moral and social values become in this world, the truth exists for those who want to see it - to those who want to uncover it.
Ditko, not I, deserves all the credit because he provided the most credit-worthy material produced in superhero comics in the last 40 years. The movie was the trigger, firing a round of justice that could penetrate even a most-hardened corporate entity like Marvel. The truth was Ditko's weapon, and this year has proven it is all he needed.
Ditko's role as co-creator had been marginalized on a corporate level (until lately) because he was his OWN man. Stan Lee built Marvel - rescued Marvel - many times over, and consequently became one with the company. As is always the case, when a piece of coal
like Spider-Man is rubbed into a gem by its creators, it starts in motion a process where the corporation will ultimately seek to control and stifle the single value that was responsible for the creation which made the corporation possible - a creator's free will.
I suspect that when copyright laws changed in the mid '70s, and Marvel had been sold (and was no longer a family [Martin Goodman family] company), the corporate lawyers invoked a
"created by our company man" tablet - a commandment not to be broken. Marvel was Stan Lee's child, and even if your children do wrong by you, you still stick by them - and you make compromises. Ditko wouldn't compromise in 1966 and left the company.
Ditko's role as co-creator was marginalized because he was not a celebrity. Siegel and Shuster took what help they could get against D.C., and Jack Kirby rode an angry wave of comics fandom to get back his artwork in the '80s.
Accessibility builds notoriety - Ditko craved none of either. Spider-man, as one of the greatest pop icons of the past 40 years, is (in effect) forcing one of the effects of justice on its creator - it is making Steve Ditko a celebrity and that is earning him his just rewards. I suspect Ditko will do it on his terms, and dictate the level of notoriety he wants; perhaps just what is required to achieve what is the truth - he co-created Spider-Man.
Blake Bell
ditko37@rogers.com
|
