Remember the above from a while back? A fellow by the name of PATRICK FORD, totally misrepresenting what my post which he links to is actually about, is still at it, in his distorting, disingenuous way. For a start, no one has, to my knowledge, ever 'insisted' (or even suggested) that fans of old MARVEL comicbooks 'need' to appreciate Ditko's post-Marvel work. So that's a 'straw man' argument for a start. Also, he himself wasn't necessarily even being thought of in my original post, so why he wants to include himself under the umbrella of my prior observations is something known only to him. However, observe his latest distortion:
He falsely claims that my original post was saying that "people who like the breadth of a creator's work are a 'worshipping society'." I never once said any such thing - never even used the word 'breadth' - that's him ascribing his own ideas to me. What I was suggesting was that when someone elevates a creator's solo work (in this case STEVE DITKO) over that which he has produced with one particular collaborator (in this case STAN LEE), and thinks that the way to extol that creator is to continually attack the work and person of his collaborator, then that seems to suggest an 'appreciation' of the creator in question that borders on an obsessive, almost 'religious' worship - even when it involves rejecting some of the creator's collaborative work because of a seemingly irrational hatred of the collaborator. Let's read an example of that attitude for ourselves, again by the aforementioned Mr. Ford.
So he hates Stan Lee so much that he won't even read some of the work collaboratively produced with Steve Ditko? Yet he criticises those who aren't particular fans of other work by Ditko, produced with a different collaborator, even though their lack of appreciation may be more down to indifference than because of a burning hatred of the collaborator. One thing I'm certain of - Stan never ruined the work of either Steve or Jack (though he may have occasionally 'tweaked' it in a different direction than either man intended), and to state that he did suggests an overwhelming, obsessional regard for the 'undiluted' work of Ditko and Kirby.
Very much like a worshipping cult I'd say, considering those that share his view are in the minority.
And let me remind people on the SNYDER/DITKO site that only the few vocal individuals who constantly strive to diminish Stan Lee's work and character, and who constantly misrepresent what others say in order to do so, are the subjects of this post, not the entire membership.
5 comments:
From the beginning, Steve Ditko was different. Honestly, it was a brilliance that took me a bit of time to recognize because he was so different from the other artists. Oh, and yes, I was introduced to him by his incredible work at Marvel. My neighborhood did not get Charltons until the mid-1960s. His art and coloring was not bright, there was often a mood hanging over his work. I often felt his stories took place after a rainstorm. His pacing was dramatic, often faster that other artists and he often used 9 panels a page to tell a story, not 4 or 6.
And he also often drew people from behind, as if he was secretly spying on them, rather than the usual view from the front, as if they were in a movie.
I cannot tell you what era is the Zenith of his work, but I LOVED his work at Marvel from the late 1950s until he leaves in 1966.
To me, Ditko was at the top of his game with Amazing Fantasy 7-15. That was when I really began to appreciate his art and storytelling. Man, I enjoyed those comics and similar stories that were appearing in other Marvel comics, including Journey into Mystery, Strange Tales, Tales of Suspense and Tales to Astonish. My favorite was from Journey Into Mystery #94 Story "The Gentle Old Man!" in 1963. I’ll email you that story, I hope you can put it up.
He was certainly different - and in a good way. (I can see a Kubert influence in some of his early Marvel mystery tales.) I loved his Atlas/Marvel work, his Warren work (which is outstanding), the look of some of his Charlton work (though I'm not familiar with much of it), and some of his DC work. His later preachy work I'm not a big fan of, have to be honest, but some of it is better than others. However, when he was good, he was brilliant! By all means send me that story and I'll put it up, Barry.
Oh, just noticed that you already have. I'll put it up later tonight. Ta.
Y'know - when you get these yahoos, as you do every now and again, you shouldn't let them bother you. Pat 'em on the head, thank them for reading and tell 'em "I'm sorry your comprehension is so poor."
Then scrape 'em off, move along and leave them to wallow in their own mess.
It's when they distort what I say in pursuit of their own agenda, 3, that irks me. They can think what they like about anything, but they shouldn't distort the words of those who don't hold the same view. It's naughty.
Post a Comment