Saturday, September 5, 2015
Monday, June 15, 2015
Some Thoughts on Blake Bell's Book, or Did Steve Ditko Once Play Baseball?
At the 1973 Comic Art Convention in New York City I wandered into a tiny
conference room near the main hall. 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, and the 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, and the “guest of honor” at the Convention. I asked about the empty room. He told me that Phil Seuling had invited him
to display his art. Art, for Beck,
included his balsa wood sculptures.
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 [Strange and
Stranger: The World of Steve Ditko; 2008, Fantagraphics]. 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 thin line better than
thick 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. He states
Martin Goodman sold Marvel in 1974 -- it was actually 1968. 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. 110):
"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. In one interview (Marvel Main,
1968) Ditko said:
. . . I'm a
cartoonist in the comic book business not a performer or personality in show
business. When I do a job, it's not my
personality that I'm offering the readers, but my art work. It's not what I'm
like that counts, it is what I did and how well it was done. I produce a
product, a comic art story.
Steve Ditko is the brand name.
I make no mystery of what I do, and where I can
properly explain why I do what I do (like in this fanzine) I'll do it. If a
person knows the what and why's, he knows all about the "who" that is
important to know.
Did Blake ever ask himself why, other than
curiosity, any other fact about Ditko would be relevant or appropriate? Would inclusion of the quote above undercut
or support his book? Did Blake consider
whether, in the absence of facts, his "opinion" is relevant and
appropriate or properly supported? 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 yronwode
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. 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 (see page
54 of Blake's book). But he earlier
explains that Ditko and Lee worked/collaborated that way on the pre-superhero
mystery, fantasy, and science fiction stories. 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.
Does Blake understand the difference
between narrative/fictional comic book stories and the non-narrative work
pioneered by Ditko in such works as The Avenging 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. A #1
as an "oversized issue." In
what way was that 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 is aberrant. Is that a fanboy mindset or the
mindset of an objective journalist or a biased critic? 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 The
Avenging World (2002). Prior to that, Ditko allowed one "fan"
(Rodney Schroeter) 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 fund manager for more money? Should C.C. Beck have been condemned for
crafting a balsa wood hammer instead of new 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 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 Welles 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 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.
© 2008 Mike DeLisa.
Permission
is granted to reprint or republish if left unchanged and copyright notice
intact.
(Mike
DeLisa (mdelisa@gmail.com) is an
attorney, author, and filmmaker. His
second book, Cinderella
Man (Milo Books 2005), was followed by his
work on two award-winning films. He has
appeared on CNN, ESPN, and NESN, as well as many radio programs. He read his
first Ditko comic in 1963.)
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)