Ditko takes on Quesada

16 Comments

1. While I’m at this, allow me to provide a better summary of Ditko’s essay:

   THESIS: Modern comic book writers, with Quesada as an example, are deconstructing or “smashing” the concept of heroism as espressed in comic books (in particular, within the Marvel universe), and that this is not only ruinous to the industry but morally abominable.

   (Pertinent details: quote -> ‘These toys are meant to be broken. If we just told stories that kept the status quo, nobody would be in this room, and I’d be out of a job. They’re meant to be thrown against a wall, smashed together, and built back up again.’ – Joe Quesada

   Dichotomy between moral absolutism (there is a definable, immutable “right and wrong” in ethics) and moral relativism (“right and wrong” depend on context and perspective, and are mutable); Objectivism (as are most all versions of neo-Marxism) sides with the theory of moral absolutes.)

   ARGUMENT STRENGTHS:

   +) Destruction, deconstruction and “revolution” for its own sake are not necessarily creative strategies.
   +) If the heroic character is meant to be an objective example of the ethical good, his “deconstruction” is ethically dishonest.
   +) Characters represent an investment of time, effort and a general consistency throughout the series; dramatically altering or changing their actions or ethics, or (worse) muddying their representation by making them a mix of “good” and “bad” ethics, simply turns them into non-entities representing nothing.

   PROBLEMS:

   +) As with most Objectivist arguments, the moral absolutism of the core philosophy is a poor model for explaining the empirical functioning of ethical systems in the real world. That is to say, if real people tend to be a mix of good and bad traits, or (even more confusing) a mix of general traits that can individually appear as “good” or “bad” depending on the observer, then aren’t moally absolute heros a form of wishful thinking and, thus, a form of intellectual dishonesty?
   +) The language used is far too strident (the moral relativism of Quesada, in regards his reworking of the characters of the Marvel universe, are not easily comparable to the version of moral absolutism that motivate the WTC bombers, or even with what naughty children tend to do with their toys when they are frustrated).
   +) Quesada is saying that doing unusual and unexpected things to superhero characters tends to sell comics, and since selling comics is what funds his paycheck, he’s going to screw around with them. This seems less a wilful decontruction on morally repugnant ideological grounds than merely a short-term attempt at boosting company profits – albeit, perhaos, at the expense of long-term fan loyalty, but that is in essence a different line of argument than where Ditko is going.

   Alan Moore’s “Watchmen” is an interesting counter-argument to Ditko’s piece – and even more poignant, if one acknowledges that Moore himself is being something of a Left-wing “Objectivist” arse throughout, especially as one considers how he gleefully warps his characterizations to conform to old 60’s era Leftist ideological myths about America. I would certainly argue that Ditko’s criticisms apply more to the Moore school of comics than they do to the more mainstream comic book houses – Moore is much more political, and much more intentionally against the Objectivist system of thinking and in favor of the Leftist form of absolutism that Ayn Rand so despised, than anyone at either Marvel or DC (who are, far and above, much much more interested in turning over a quick buck – no matter what that entails).

   In fact, as a perfect example of that latter impulse, go see the Harry Partridge clip entitled “Saturday Morning Watchmen” on Youtube – a perfect example of how a comic property might be whored out to generate some quick extra cash. It’s hilarious.

   Incidentally most every Objectivist, including Rand herself, come out determinedly against any sort of religious practice, particularly organised religion. Ayn Rand herself was in favor of abortion. There are some Objectivists who are against abortion, and there are some Objectivists who are for Obama – in fact, there are quite a few divergent factions amongst Objectivists, much as there are amongst other neo-Marxist groups (and if the last part of my comment jars you, remember that the Objectivist relationship to Marxism as that of Satanists to Christianity – diametrically opposed, surely, but in the context of the worldview and parameters of their opposite opponents; likewise remember that Ayn Rand’s college degree was from the University of St. Petersburg, and in Marxist-Leninist philosophy.) Indeed, if one understands where Rand’s philosophy really comes from ( and I suggest Charles Sciabarra and Barbara Branden’s works for this), it becomes quite evident that “Atlas Shrugged” (and indeed, much of Objectivism itself) is not a commentary on mid-20th century America but rather a visceral commentary on the situation in Russia immediately following the collapse of Czarist Russia and the rise of the Bolsheviks.

   So Ayn Rand was not so much an American conservative as she was a Russian radical. Thus the title of Sciabarra’s excellent book. But I digress.

   At this point I suppose I should surrender the floor. Anyone else?

2. I think Ditko’s unique brand of thinking ought to be granted at least the same respect as when Alan Moore goes on one of his anarchist rants. One of my biggest problem with Objectivists, in fact, is that they are almost as intolerant and as pig-headed about alternate lines of thought and as smugly self-confident about their own as the NPR, “limousine liberal” and “Chomsky anarchist” crowd.

   Moral absolutism and contemporary conservative thought is not synonymous, as anyone aware of the Rand/Buckley schism could easily attest. But Objectivists are associated with conservatives, so that makes them the “enemy” as far as Leftists and liberals are concerned – which means that such people are not so much given a critical hearing as drowned out with a barrage of personal insults (and this is just as annoying and stupid when O’Reilly or Limbaugh does it as when Olbermann or Stewart are guilty of the charge). Some amongst the Leftist intelligensia have decried this kind of thing – Christopher Hitchens in particular, who reasons that, if liberal thought is superior, then one ought to be able to depend on the strength of those arguments and not on the volume of one’s invective. But for the modern hard-core fanatic – and this is especially true in the US, I’m afraid – invective and ridicule has become a substitute for reasoned arguments and demonstrable facts.

   I might add, “Crazy Chris”, that if you object to being insulted anonymously you should not start off a thread by doing exactly the same to others. You might end up, based on a reasonable understanding of the term’s definition and your lead post as evidence, be branded as a “hypocrite”. And then you’d be insulted with no recourse to object.

3. This is a very smart piece. I can see his point.

4. In a sense I agree with Ditko, that Marvel has really turned their world upside down with things like Norman Osborn running S.H.I.E.L.D. and JJJ as Mayor. There are times I feel when I buy a Marvel comic and I realize that it just isn’t the company I have grown up reading. It seems like every month they do things like this and go out of their way to not give fans what they want. If you take DC, they give fans what they want most of the time or at least more than Marvel does. But at the end of the day, I’m still buying more Marvel comics then DC because I want to see what happens next. Also, even though I think certain things like Norman running things is hella unbelievable, it makes for a fun comic.

   I don’t think his criticism should be about every Marvel comic though. There’s still Spider-Girl – which is great – where you have your white hats and black hats and things are more or less like how he thinks comics should work. Oh there is grey like Normie going from being bad to good, but it seems closer to his ideal I feel. Um, at least what I could make out of his interview…

   BND sucks though. Only saying that since this is the second time I’ve ever said anything on Crawl Space and I haven’t had my turn to say how much it blows…. 😛

5. Doubt they care.

6. Damn….I kind of want to know what “The web-heads” and Quesada think about this.

7. When someone takes that many words to say, “Comics these days do not present characters as stand-ins for absolutist moral concepts, and that’s bad,” I think It’s fair to call him out on not saying much of anything. His philosophy may make sense, but I do not like how he argues that any comic that deviates from his world view constitutes a war on the rational mind. The truly rational mind welcomes and savors alternate view points because truth can best be found when there is a market of ideas. At least Bill Willingham has the decency to pledge to lead by example before casting stones at others. I’d respect Ditko more if he crawled out of his cave and showed everyone how a mainstream super hero comic should be done instead of calling current professionals “liars” and “anti-minds” from the shadows. There isn’t a comic company in the country that wouldn’t publish something with his name on it.

   And Zarius, I’d respect YOU more if you gave me and the other posters you’ve insulted in your increasingly bold trollish posts the respect we’re entitled to. If you want to know my name and where to find me so you can call me “profoundly stupid” to my face, shoot me a PM.

   As for the thing you said I cannot defend, what you’re saying is beside the point. I agree that some characters have been driven into the ground under Quesada (some characters, on the other hand, are being written as good or better than ever), but I disagree with Ditko on what the specific problem is. THANK GOD every costumed superhero isn’t an Objectivist mouthpiece.

8. A lot of his philosophy makes sense, he definatly isnt “saying nothing”. That is a profoundly stupid way of sniping someone’s view of the world in which profitable characters are held in momentum, as nothing is said without something to find.

   If anything, hammering characters INTO nothing is what Quesada has been doing. To collapsing sales. Defend THAT Crazy[/you can’t]. Dikito likely wouldnt read a Quesada title because it’d prove him right 24/7.

9. When was this article written? It looks like it’s a couple of years old.

   Whereas I don’t agree with Ditko’s Objectivism, I do think that he makes a couple of good points. Yeah, the article is mired in his personal philosophy, and I found it interesting that he used the Green Arrow/Speedy Drug story from the ’70’s to prove his point. However that doesn’t mean that he’s 100% wrong either. The idea of changing something, but not really changing it because of licensing is dead on. My feeling is that that’s one of the reasons we got stuck with BND. Also his statement that good stories can still be told without changing the status quo is equally true. Geoff Johns is a good example of that – he’s able to work within a set of perimeters that have been established, or he is able to take a character back to a status quo that no one else was able to do anything with and make the situation work ( Hal Jordan Green Lantern). It’s easy to dismiss Ditko because of his beliefs and actions, but to judge this article based solely on that is do it a disservice.

10. Objectivists are right-wing to the extreme. Banning abortion, the draft, and organized religion are really only associated with the right in the narrow contemporary American context. For example, communist dictators support the draft but that doesn’t make them any more right wing. Broadly, the right/left distinction, more than anything, is a distinction between varying degrees of individualism and collectivism. Communists and socialists are on the left, believing that society as a whole takes absolute precedence over the individual in pretty much every aspect of life. Right of that is neoclassical liberalism, the system of thought that encompasses most of mainstream American culture, which seeks to balance individual happiness with responsibilities to the community. What those specific responsibilities are is what separates Democrats from Republicans. The Objectivists are somewhere to the right of that, believing that an individual has practically no responsibility to anyone but himself and his own goals and happiness.

    And if Ditko went for the jugular, he was so beside the point Quesada was making that he hit the pinky toe. I highly doubt Ditko has even read a Marvel comic since Quesada became EiC.

11. Nat is correct that Ditko is talking strictly about Objectivism. Ditko is a huge fan of Ayn Rand, and about the farthest away as you can get to right-wing. Rand believed in legalized abortion, was against the draft and was strongly opposed to organized religion. She was pure and simple an individualist and independent thinker that believed that the individual’s right to pursue happiness was the highest ethical goal.

    Right-wing? Never. Taking a simple statement by JoeyQ and going for the jugular? Absolute Objectivism to the core…

12. “If there are “smashed” identities of contradictory identifications, then everyone becomes a non-entity, indefinable by any valid standard”
    EXACTLY why I had to leave spidey behind. Marvel’s breaking down their characters until something unrecognizable and indescribable remains.

    Also you guys that are having trouble reading it, you’re missing out. Consider printing the article out and spending some time with it, it’s not meant to be read over like most random news articles. Ditko puts a lot of thought into his words and if you’re not used to this kind of prose you have to give it some attention. It’s not exactly right wing bull$#!%, and while he does take one quote and dissect it heavily, he makes valid points about marvel comics, and the comic industry, as a whole.

13. Wow, so Joe Q. is the latest in a long line of editors who are terrorising the comic book industry in an ongoing war against the rational mind, reason, against an objective reality, with all kinds, forms, of protesters, “smashers.” I don’t think there was anything vague about the right-wing diatribe in this article, for the term right-wing has come to be associated with preserving the STATUS QUO in the form of institutions and traditions.
    The narcissist pseudo-philosophy CrazyChris is talking about is the philosophy of Objectivism. If you read the article you can clearly see that Objectivism is very hard to understand. So i will refer to Websters Dictionary for the definition. Objectivism: an ethical theory that moral good is objectively real or that moral precepts are objectively valid. Think Rorschach, of Watchmen, and how he viewed New York.
    I enjoyed this article because Ditka philosphy on popular culture, comics, and the world reminded me of Rorschach. And it only makes me more impressed with what Allan Moore did with the character. Allan Moore was able to take the philosophies behind the character of the Question and instill them into Rorschach.

14. I’ve tried to read it three times, but it’s anything but conversational writing. He’s writing on a different plane that I operate. But I agree with Chris, it does seem he’s taking a single quote and blowing it out of proportion.

15. Can’t wait to read this!

16. If you had trouble understanding it, let me condense it for you: He took a quote from Quesada, completely distorted the spirit of that, and used it as a springboard from which to leap into a vaguely right-wing diatribe using a whole lot of words to say a whole lot of nothing in the jargon of his narcissist pseudo-philosophy.