Mr. A By Steve Ditko
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 лют 2019
- Following his departure from Marvel Comics, Steve Ditko primarily produced work for independent publishers. One of his most infamous creations during this time is the character simply known as Mr. A.
Please subscribe to be notified of future updates!
SUPPORT OVERLORD COMICS:
bit.ly/SupportOverlord
(Get early, ad free access to videos.)
OVERLORD COMICS ON TWITTER:
bit.ly/OverlordComics
#SilverAge #Bronze Age #SteveDitko #Comics #OverlordComics - Розваги
Ditko WAS Mr. A: a guy who adamantly followed his own principles and refused to deviate from them. I'm not that familiar with Ayn Rand aside from The Fountainhead movie, lol, but like the main character, Ditko absolutely owned what he created. If he was doing work-for-hire with characters and stories that weren't his, fine, he did what he was told, but his independent stuff? He did it his own way regardless of readability, approachability, or marketability. With Spider-Man, because he felt, at the very least, co-ownership, he was very creatively involved and, like Kirby, eventually began mailing pages in unseen and undiscussed, no doubt grimacing at the way Stan interpreted or outright ignored his story and panel notes. All of which reached a breaking point, according to Stan, over who the Green Goblin was going to be; but according to Steve, culminated when he dropped in to see Stan in his office, was told he was busy, then basically went "fuck it" and walked away from not only the building but Marvel's best-selling, best-loved character-a character that, unlike Kirby and family, he never went to court over. Why? Because it was never about the money or fame or success for Mr. D; it was about following a path as white and uncompromising as Mr. A's. I just wish that path had resulted in some better-told stories, lol.
There was definitely more to it than that. Alan Moore admits that Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby did all the work and Stan Lee would fill in speech bubbles. He also changed the characters Steve Ditko created and ostracized him for his beliefs. Jack Kirby who he also used as a work horse had a more similar ideology to Stan Lee, so he at-least got to keep his philosophy in his work. The comic book scene was very liberal even for todays standards, I’ve seen professors do the same thing to students.
It was so obvious that even Alan Moore, a man directly opposed to Ditko in every way imaginable felt sympathy for him.
Mr A feels like he's one hair's breadth away from becoming a parody.
All you would need to do is make the crime committed at the beginning of the arc something mundane like stealing a pen and have the pursuit between the criminal and Mr A keep escalating to the point where the criminal ends up hanging from the window of a burning building, set on fire during the chase, before Mr A lectures him about taking responsibility for how his actions affect others before stamping on his fingers, causing him to fall 20 stories to the pavement below.
Mr. A. wouldn't stamp on his fingers. He would just walk away and let them fall. That is how his first appearance and his last appearance ended. A recurring theme in Ditko's independent work is the protagonist walking away, leaving the antagonist in a position from which there is no escape. I think that its his way of saying "When evil is ready to destroy itself, let it."
still better than SJW characters
@@savagetv6460 What is the definition of a SJW character?
@@Grogeous_Maximus characters who's sole purpose is peddle progressive politics
@Mikhail G yeah pretty much look at the new ms.marvel or iron heart or the new hulk or lady thor
To whoever owns the rights:
We need that Mr. A omnibus collection.
I believe Ditko explicitly forbade such a thing. Lol
@@sirmount2636 When?
I don't remember. But I did read that he never wanted a Mr. A omnibus.
Regardless, I believe the copyright is in the hands of Robin Snyder now, so we may see an omnibus yet!
Dear lord I hope not. Let's hope Mr. A stays buried.
@@sirmount2636 I seem to remember this too. There was an interview given after his death by a relative of his addressing the possibility of collecting some of his stories for commercial availability. The relative’s stance was that they knew Steve would object to it if he were here, but that it was still being considered anyway
A quick Google search and I found exactly what I was thinking about:
bleedingcool.com/comics/steve-ditkos-mr-a-collection/
Yeah, I can see how Mr. A inspired Alan Moore to create Rorschar
@Mikhail G that's ironic, considering that ditko planed the character to be a serious represention of this philosofy
@@pedrovieira-ri7lk And Moore for as much as he makes Rosarch out to be a bad guy is still a hero.
Right?
"Never compromise... even in the face of Armageddon."
*gets vaporized cuz he's just some guy
@@logancox6548
The Problem Moore faced was that he tried to make fun of Mr.A's objectivism by showing how when the chips are down you're forced to compromise
Wich is the very moment when Objectivism shines. The discredits ppl could make to Mr.A is that he was so extreme on relatively petty situations, Alan Moore accidentally portrayed him in the opposite case.
Moore placed him at the point where the choice were his principles or his life and he chose to stay true to what he believed.
Night owl went and had his fun as a superhero but in the eyes of the audience this is not virtuous, he gets to go and have fun on the backs of millions of people killed and a new world order created by lies?
At the end of the day the problem was that in order to make Rorschar a suitable punching bag for Objectivism, Moore needed to keep him a true objectivist, because if he didn't then people could argue that wasn't the real thing and Moore was just making up strawmen, something he was too savvy to fall into. So he made him a hobo, he looks dirty and ragged in comparison to other characters, he has little in the way of power or even true deductive skills (He goes the whole comic wondering things and rarely ever making any meaningful connections when not aided by night owl) He doesn't have the money or a support system (Implying that he is so unlikable he repels anyone around him), He makes comments that border on being racists and talks misoginistically in the interview with the psychologist. Hell, he never wins any of his actual fights outside of roughing up bar attendees and jumping at an old man from a freezer. Ozymandias DISMANTLES HIM.
But at the end of the day, when the chips are down, the virtues inherent to the ideology shine trough, he's the only one that acts heroically at the end. Everyone, even manhattan is acting out of cowardice, or submission to Ozymandia's scheme.
And I think even Moore recognized this at the end,to some degree, when Rorscharc's diary arrives at the newspaper office, in Moore's mind perhaps it was to be a condemnation of Mr.A's doggedness to fight for what they perceived as "true". If Rorschar diaries were publicated, that would mean that all the sacrifices killed for Ozymandia's plans would be bust. The world would be plunged back into cold war escalation and Rorschar would effectively have sentenced the planet to death by choosing to pursue his "Truth"
But I think this is also Moore's slip, because it puts into perspective that a peace brought about by lies, is inherently flimsy and at best only a half measure. If the world could be plunged back into danger by a single hobo sending a letter, was Ozymandia's plan ever sucesfull? Were those crimes done in the name of utilitarianism really necessary? Aren't those who cowed and lowered their heads and went along with this plan because it was a noble lie, a lesser evil now equally as guilty as Ozymandias hand that killed millions?
@@dakota4384Roarshack literally was willing to put the world in all chaos just fir hus philosophy
I would actually like to see Mr. A reimagined as a villain for The Question.
That...that is a stellar idea.
I would guess Ditko likely left the rights to his creator owned material to Robin Snyder, who published a bunch of Ditko's material. That's presuming Ditko had a last will and testament. Otherwise, I guess this material would become public domain? I am quite unsure.
Steve Koller - 🤔 that is intriguing.
Ooh! That'd kick ass!
Imagine a scenario:, The Question, an objectivist hero who doesn't let the philosophy blind him, fighting a man who's whole reason for being a hero, IS his philosophy. Mr. A would see Question as evil for the light way he uses objectivism in his heroics, and would go MAD. For example, as a light way to start off, Mr. A chases a thief to the edge of a building, causing him to fall and grab onto the ledge. As he leaves The Question would swoop in and save the man, stating that while he is a criminal, he deserves fair trial, instead of outright death.
I'm very high right now, so this is as much as I could think of. Everyone feel free to continue this, because I would really love to read other ideas and scenarios
Rest in Peace. Steve Ditko
Ditko has such a clean, unique style. Love how he blends lettering into the imagery throughout his work on Mr. A. You cant really judge Mr. A to a normal comic. Its more like a Jack Chick pamphlet.
Yet Mr A is more realistic than a Chic Tract
I like them both. Chick is underrated. Able to draw in both a cartoony and an almost photo-real style.
I still have my copy of Witzend No. 3 with that first Mr. A story. I'd grown up as a kid in the 60s with Marvel comics, and Spider-Man in particular, and was a big Ditko fan. So I was a bit stunned when I first read that first Mr. A offering... it seemed so stark and brutal. Re-reading it now 56 years later, I still find the idea that life is black and white both unconvincing and chilling.
While I hold immense respect for Steve Ditko, Ayn Rand, Aristotle (Ditko's other admired philosopher), I think Mr. A was quite possibly Ditko's worst creation solely because it was a total preachy, and there was no room for error in Ditko's Mr. A. You were either on his side of right, or you were wrong and needed to be punished in the most extreme way possible. No teachable moment. No rehabilitation. No second chance. If you messed up then you paid the ultimate price, and sometimes that meant death. Mr. A is what turned a lot of devout Ditko readers off, costing him an even bigger legacy than what he has. I personally feel that Doctor Strange was Ditko's greatest creation, and make no bones about it, it was Ditko's and no one else's. With that said, if anyone has doubt about Stan Lee's involvement in the comics Kirby and Ditko made, let Ditko's Mr A and Kirby's Fourth World be definitive proof that Lee always provided the dialogue for the comics both men made at Marvel in the 1960's. The dialogue in those comics were always smooth, natural, emotional, and very creative, especially in the realm of alliteration. I won't argue about Lee taking too much credit for what was created, but I will argue it was Lee who provided the dialogue and captions to every single comic which said "Written by" or "Story by" with Stan Lee as the name after that credit.
I think Ditko misinterpreted what Good and Evil means when it involves Rand's Philosophy of man's morality; it is ridiculous to think that such binary morality wholly dictates man. For it fundamentally contradicts Objectivist Philosophy in regards to Free Will. If man was born Good or Evil, then he would have no concept nor the idea to comprehend what such concepts as Good or Evil are. For he would be a robot.
Free Will means that man is born undecided, free to learn and understand, to choose and to decide their own morality. If man can choose to be Evil then he can also choose to be Good as well, for his Free Will would allow him to be fix his flaws to better himself if he so chose.
@@ianmaluk1 Do you mean metaphysical libertarianism (ml) or metaphysical compatiblism (mc) in the moral sense? Because Ditko does get Rand, but Ayn Rand herself tries to have both concepts at once. This is impossible because the former is in the moral sense, very black and white with no exceptions, making it lean toward moral absolutism. All the while the latter is morally gray in that there are exceptions to be made, making it lean toward ethical naturalism. ML would fall in line with a very rigid deontological or rule consequentialist stance in normative ethics, while MC would be a loose act consequentialist or inbetween virtue ethicist stance. Rand I feel is rule consequentialist, but for her to take the position of ML, she would have to accept that either free will is possible to exist without the body and continue with the soul, or she would have to believe that free will is related to the random motions of sub-atomic particles in quantum mechanics. Although, if she were to take a MC position, she would have to reject moral absolutism and claim that for free will to be compatible with the natural world as well as ethics, she would have to provide empirical data, as that is going into the slippery slope of ethics as a natural occurring phenomenon. The only other solution would be to adopt a non-naturalist solution to ethics and compatiblism, and accept that ethics are like math mathematical facts. But then she would have to take exceptions to her ethics, thus making compromises. As with Mr. A, he makes no compromises at all, so thus Ditko is not misreading Ayn Rand, he is reading her correctly, however, he failed to see the flaws of her arguments as he never bothered to engage philosophers who have long refuted Ayn Rand.
That's one of the reasons that Mr. A comes off as way too "holier than thou" for me. He's this paragon that goes around punishing people (except not really, he'll beat people up and hurt them, but they always die by their own actions, rather convenient that Mr. A never kills anyone, but never saves them from dying either. He'll beat the hell out of people, but to maintain his moral high ground, never kills anyone) like he's the sole arbiter of morality fighting against an unjust world, and it's his duty to dole out righteous justice - but he does it so callously that even if he's right you don't want to agree with him, which is a terrible way to convince people to conform to a philosoph. Yes, viewing the world as unjust and immoral due to "grey-area" compromises is a cornerstone of Mr. A's characterization, and yes, it could be argued that people who don't agree with Mr. A "lack moral fiber to do what needs to be done to those who commit evil acts", but it's my personal belief that if you're going to go do good in the world, you accomplish that by elevating and rehabilitating those who can't see the error of their ways.
Although it could be argued that his victims "already made their choice" when they committed immoral acts, and that was what damns them in the eyes of Mr. A, by being written in a way that doesn't allow for criminals to do anthing but suffer and die even after they regret their actions, it most certainly gets repetitive as a story. Especially since Mr. A believes that committing evil and immoral acts will lead to your own inevitable demise, it begs the question: why does Mr. A need to exist? If his opponents are going to wind up destroying themselves anyway by their own devices, what exactly is he doing pursuing those who he believes need to be punished? It just comes across as preachy and condescending.
And you should absolutely live life in a moral and upright fashion, it's great life advice, but bad entertainment.
@@musicandmagic909 I could not agree with you more. When I first heard of Mr. A in the early 2000's I wanted to read it so badly because it sounded like Mr. A was similar to the Green Hornet. It took me years to find a single issue in a shop here in Texas. Then I found one around 2012, and I was bored to tears. I felt the hoopla that writers like Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman put around Mr. A was too kind. It was preachy, it had no point to why Mr. A exists, and I feel Ditko's beliefs were drowned out by the condescending nature of it all. Others may disagree with me, and that's fine, but Dr. Strange is the most perfect creation of Ditko's. Strange was well-rounded in his creation, and found purpose in his existence. I just wish Ditko could've given us more Strange. He definitely quit Marvel way too soon. And I understand why he did. Hell, I probably would've too under those circumstances, but nonetheless it is a shame.
@@ianmaluk1 Exactly. Now all we need is a time machine so you can go back in time, meet Steve Ditko, and tell that too him so he can make Mr. A better. :)
I don't know why but I always find the character interesting
Ditto. It's the only character Ditko created that *might* give some insight into the creator himself.
Probably because you feel like a psychiatrist trying to understand the mind of a serial killer
@@DeadlyAlienInvader Nice character assassination there. Classy!
No One okay, maybe I went a bit far with the “serial killer” part.
No One also, just to clarify, when I said serial killer, I wasn’t referring to Steve Ditko but, to his character, Mr. A-which probably doesn’t make my comment better but, I feel like I need to point that out in case if you thought otherwise.
Unfortunately Ditko allowed his work on Mr. A to become super preachy which turned off a lot of readers. I find his other creation the Question a lot more interesting.
The problem in some of the Mister A stories is that there was no editor there to say, "Steve, including philosophy is fine if you want, but you still have to keep the story moving!" Ditko was long enough a pro to know this, of course, but he undoubtedly decided it was more important to be clear on his text than to serve the dramatic sensibilities of his stories at times. Of course, this varies greatly by story. Some are much tighter written, and others are really stories at all, with Mister A merely serving as an illustrated example for a philosophy essay. So I guess it really depends on the story.
I bet you love sjw marvel and cheered diversity stories
Black Knight lol triggered conservatives are hilarious lmao
@@notmyname5591 my point still stands, it's ironic seeing leftists call ditko preachy while championing modern marvel which is just as preachy
@@savagetv6460
You're creating hypocrisy where there is none. You had no reason to believe that they liked other preachy comics, and just assumed it so you could manufacture an enemy and have something to fight over. That's stupid.
I always thought mr. A was kinda creepy. A man with a permanent scowl just chasing people down who he doesn't agree with.
I didn't know Mr A was on Twitter so much
Mr A sounds based and you sound like the kind of people who would commit horrible crimes only to run from him 😂
...criminals??
That's EVERY action hero vigilante.
😅
I read some of the old scans and It's not the fascist mess people say it is. Mr A is a moral person who sees things as they are and doesn't make excuses for or glorify criminals. His enemies are the criminals that act out of greed and jealousy toward others, rather than pursuing honest work using their own talents. It makes the point that being soft on criminals means being hard on their future victims.
Sure, all the villains in Mr. A are one-note greedy jealous cowards, but criminals in real life aren’t like that 99% of the time. The way Mr. A creates a strict moral dichotomy between good and evil and adheres to literal black and white philosophy is antithetical to reducing crime, and while not fascist, can be easily paired with fascist thinking
This is the perfect take on Ditko
Wow, this is the most concise and thoughtful video on Mr. A and his creator yet. Thanks!
The artwork is phenomenal
I think what's mainly interesting is it sheds new light on Watchmen. The
inspiration for Rorschach is this guy. Ditko even called him "Mr. A but
insane", but he's really a criticism of this approach to morality. Alan
Moore thought of Mr. A as already insane, and Rorschach is just taking
his character to its logical extreme. In fact each character in Watchmen
is a criticism of comic book character types and tropes in different
ways, I am thinking I'll write about that in my blog.
What I was doing with my blog was reviewing all the marvel movies since 2008 but it became a drag just over halfway through, there are many movies.
Everyone liked Rorschach
Hope the article turned out well. One thing about Alan Moore's Watchmen is that he is merely saying no one should ever declare themselves the savior of humanity, for that breeds authoritarianism. That which he see superheroes as: human beings with a savior complex. I only find fault in Watchmen in that Moore didn't give an opened ended resolution so that other writers could respond to his work.
@@savagetv6460 I don't think y'all understand Rorschach as a criticism of the near-fascistic behavior of Mr. A, Batman, and Iron Man who have a savior complex.
The irony is that people scoff at Ditko's neo-Aristotlean Objectivism and call him "simplistic" and crazy, yet anarchic-socialist Alan Moore is called a genius while worshipping his serpent god and writing child pornography. Give me Mr. A over non-DC Alan Moore any day.
I'm not gonna lie, this looks like a very interesting characters. You can do some really cool stuff with this premisse.
This really helped me to better appreciate and understand the character of Rorschach in Watchmen as well as the interlude comic between it and the 2019 series.
Normie.
Only fools will tell you that money is the root of all evil. Money is the tool of exchange, a tool that first must be made before it is, used, begged, stolen or earned! And it has to be made by the productive abilities of men! Is that evil? Money is made by, and the rightful tool of honest people! For people who can exchange their abilities for an equal value - MONEY. And that money is exchanged for an equal value in products and services provided by other men's abilities. Is that evil? Beggars and thieves exchange NOTHING for their wants and demands of someone else’s earned wealth nor the cheats and corrupters who knowingly deal in the inferior, the illegal, and the non-value for a true value money. And THAT is evil ! - Mr A
Could you do a video on classic Steve's Dr Strange stories?
That's not a bad idea. :)
A story with Mr. A as the villain to a likable “bad guy” trying to walk the grey path or something.
Ditko absolutist nature informed him that Stan felt 'charitable' about giving him co-creator credit on Spiderman. He hated this insincere charity and wanted an absolute statement from Stan, that he never received. Ditko WAS Mr. A.
Great video!
Great video. Thank you! I despise objectivism and everything it stands for, but I am absolutely fascinated by Mr. A.
Name one aspect of Objectivism to which you object. It's an excellent philosophy.
@@CerealKiller
Clearly, you're not real. You're a meme.
A correction: morality is not "self-evident" in Objectivism. In Ovjectivism, the standard of moral good is your individual life and happiness, and it is not always easy to know what is really going to lead to your long term happiness. The job of Ethics is to give you a code to live by, that will maximize the possibility of living a happy life. Necessarily, such a code is rational, not based on anything mystical or subjective. Rand's moral reasoning is premised much like Aristotle's, and she always said Aristotle was the greatest philosopher in history and her only influence. Some of her conclusions are different, but never does she claim any of it to be self evident.
Ditko is a fascinating artist and person, and even if Mr. A isn't written well, it's drawn insanely well. Stan Lee's contribution to Spider-Man is much like his contribution to Kirby's work: giving ideas and editing. He deserves credit but he certainly did NOT invent or even actually written most of Spider-Man, FF, Thor, Hulk, Avengers, Sgt. Fury, Dr. Strange etc. etc.
It's possible that what we are reading is not a true representation of the events taking place, but simply how Mr. A perceives them. The reason the characters in the story don't talk like people, but instead like personifications of objectivist ideas, is because they are projections of Mr. A's own philosophy. The characters in the story aren't really saying the things we're reading but, because of Mr. A's overly simplified worldview, to him they might as well be. He has created his own overly simplified evil people in his head to fight in order to continue to feed his own perception of himself as a perfect hero who is always justified in his actions.
This was a clear, concise, fairly unbiased approach to Mr. Ditko’s work. Thank you for making it.
I personally find the character very appealing but if he were parodied in some way. I quite like the idea of a superhero about to kill a villain but instead launching into a lecture about moralism. A sort of reverse-monologuing.
I think Mr. A can be written well but if you took him with a grain of salt.
Unbiased?? 😂 the guy was completely trashing Ditko halfway thru the video! What are you talking about? He was clearly butthurt by Ditko’s opinions. This guy had radicalized leftist all over the second half of the video. If you’re gonna give praise, at least be HALF true and not a full blown lie. 😂
@@koldemperor8474 Can’t handle someone talking trash about forgotten irrelevant superhero huh
I'm sorry for what is going to sound like a bad pun considering the topic here, but- your assessment of this is purely subjective. I find those early Mr. A stories entertaining and fascinating. Your argument of Mr. A's logic could be applied to Batman, The Punisher, etc.- as for "who talks like this? no one" you can apply that to ANY comic character whether it's written by Bendis or it's written by Ditko.
I'm late to the party, but the "nobody talks like that" in Mr.A's case doesn't work. The thing is, the characters in Mr.A are incarnation of thoughts we can have in our minds, it's like our justifications for doing wrong were unmasked to show that stereotype "hehe I'm just Evil guys", without the fluff we all put to that "It was rainy so I didn't went to the gym" or "I mean he's rich, steling from him won't hurt him, it's not like he's not gonna eat at the end of the month" so they seem virtuous or acceptable.
Funny you made this video was just thinking about Mr A if someone could someone ever do a story with the character i think a would be interesting to do a story with hawk and dove and see how their different views interact his and since their both Ditko made.
I had no knowledge of this character. But I think I would rather like Mr A. Really good video!
Thank you, sir! Mr. A is definitely a character with a unique perspective.
I just heard of this character for the first time, I sought this video for more context, but instead, I was greeted with a man looking at the sky with a broken microscope for ten minutes.
While collecting comics in high school i saw a issue promoting his character.i took a quick peak and found mr.a a bit silly.i mean a ordinary man in a helmet and a white suit was dopey to me.now i wish i could have gotten into it a little deeper.
I so would love to read about this “Mr A” character. He seems really interesting and...kinda badass. I don’t exactly get objectivism, nor do I wanna get into it, but I’m really intrigued by him. I would really love to read those comics.
Mr. A is like a police officer brutalizing and killing person of color who's loyalty lies in protecting money. In short, he's a law and order type on the brink of becoming a fascist.
@@CosmoShidan Tell me you've never read Mr. A without saying "I've never read Mr. A."
@@RockandrollNegro Tell me you've actually read a philosophy text without reading philosophy.
@@RockandrollNegroi’m tryna wrap my head around objectivism but i find it so confusing
Mr A reminds me of far left ideologues... which I find very ironic, considering Ditko’s politics. That said, Objectivism comes in many forms.
2+2 does equal 4, however. So some truths are objective. But the stories of individual ppl, even those who have committed crimes, are not always so black and white. Not always. Ppl make mistakes, fall on hard times, get duped by bad ppl. Every situation should be judged individually and subjectively while still attempting to uphold objective truth
Still, an interesting character and creator to analyze. Ditko is a very interesting man. Hell, none of Moore’s characters have been analyzed more than Rorschach, based on Ditko’s Mr A. Interesting that ppl see what they want in a character called Rorschach. But that’s another story. Good stuff
2+2 doesn't equal 4 in my case. Since you couldn't see the external hidden fiscal +1,mental -3 circumstances of the number 2. My point being, involvement of external factors, doesn't mean that it's subjective now, it means the equation has changed.
You are pointing the big criticism on Rand’s pseudo philosophy: moral objectivism is clear as water if you are an educated and functional individual within society so you must acknowledge your “superiority” - like, well, you were born privileged so maintain your moral superiority above those amoral apes who are born into poverty, exploitation, colonialism, etc. Why Ditko became and adept of it, I don’t know, but could have been a little bit more critical of Rand.
I love this comic
Mr A may not be much good, but his business cards are so cool! Gonna go grab a sharpie and make some!
Finally someone finally said it ! Mr.A is boring and preachy. Life is nothing but gray.
In light of this character, I think I can now pinpoint the exact moment in comic history that drove Ditko away from Marvel or, at least, Spider-Man.
There was this story arc in the early days of Spider-Man in which there was this one former crime boss who J. Jonah Jameson decided to give a second chance to by letting him work at the Daily Bugle. Spider-Man never trusted the guy, and that mistrust was well placed because in private dialogues it was revealed the guy was just using his relationship with Jameson to try and secretly work his way back into the criminal underworld.
Well, in the first story arc to introduce Wilson Fisk/the Kingpin, this guy ends up rubbing him the wrong way by trying to make the Kingpin HIS lackey, which was a rather big insult. In everything that transpired after that, there was a bunch of hullabullo and finally it ended up at a point where the Kingpin was poised to kill Jameson. At that moment, however, the former crime boss had a crisis of conscience on realizing Jameson was the only one who was willing to give him another chance when anyone else would have thrown the legal book at him, and he ended up sacrificing himself by taking the final hit to save Jameson's life.
Now, in light of Mr. A and Ditko's Moral Objectivism, I can guess that Stan Lee was the one who drove that plot change and that it probably left Ditko utterly disgusted as he would have considered it morally reprehensible and fairy-tale-esque. But to be honest, this would have happened sometime around The Amazing Spider-Man #50 and the following issues. So since I don't know the exact issue in which Ditko left Marvel Comics, I can't tell if this was a straw that broke the camel's back or if Lee might have actually purposely resolved that storyline in that way just to stick it to him.
In an alternate universe I’d drop late Steve Ditko in a room with late Dave Sim and see what sort of beautiful insanity came out.
He'd have hated Twitter
I can imagine Ditko rage quitting after getting dog-piled on by philosophy majors!
@@CosmoShidan He lived into 2018, he would have known what it was. I doubt he'd be dogpiled by people with a near worthless degree.
@@dakota4384 Philosophy degrees are for employment in Law, Nonprofits, Libraries, Museums, Teaching, Journalism, Public Relations, Art, Architecture and Nursing. Ditko's philosophy is nothing but fraud, and thereby horseshit.
@@CosmoShidan I like how your idea of empowerment is having multiple people of your desired philosophy teaming up against one man to defeat him. Show how much of a coward you really are. You are terrified of a fair fight.
@@gaiseric9518 So you mean to tell me that we should allow a white supremacist ideology like objectivism and its advocates to be platformed? I think not, for an ideology that is classist and racist, it can rot in a shithole.
What made you want to revisit this character?
Quite simply, I thought I could do a better job than I had previously.
I love the story of Kirby creating Adam Warlock to show Ditko the idiocy of Objectivism only to have Stan Lee edit into a silly kids comic story
Mr.A sounds pretty great. Would love to see a movie about him
Not from any modern day film maker.
Wow..., just wow. A bit random...but if anyone would like to see Ditko's take on Superman, check out issue 400 of Superman
(Oct. 84) he has a really cool art page in it.
Off subject: I was unable to locate that Swamp Thing 100-page mag. Sorry sir!
I really like Mr A's artwork style*
@@gregorblack5557 not quiet time for it yet...around the end of this month👍
Excellent. I'll be on the look out + looks like a new WW & The Flash (seperate) are coming soon as well. JL might be ending however (Wal-Mart wise)
@@gregorblack5557 it's out now, picked up my copy last night. And don't forget, this is an ongoing monthly series now.
I saw that. Super cool! *hoping it's not New52 ST & Animal Man because I have them already
Flash & WW catch my eye! :) thanks Edward & lmk if it's New52 please
It’s hard to argue ; Stan Lee created the origin story, the superior intellect of Peter Parker and Spiderman’s sense of humor. Steve Ditko clearly created the look, the webbing ( once Stan Lee said it couldn’t be just part of his power ) and Peter’s morose outlook. Co creator is fair.
All white suit, all white mask, kills people; that sounds bad.
Mr A is a concept. He stands for the logical conclusion of superhero vigilantism if you would apply justification. He sometimes kills criminals and sometimes the criminals are their own undoing and he doesnt help them. Know the difference. Batman isn't so much different in the movies. He kills bad guys left and right and no one bats an eye as the joker would say.
@@NoOne-uh9vu Batman does not kill, it would be stupid for him to do so and any director who thinks they have done some kind of interesting subversion of his character by making him kill does not understand anything about what the character actually is supposed to be
I actually really want to see Mr. A in a Spider-Man comic, something about the most human and most endearing hero in comics coming across a man like Mr. A would be fascinating.
"A is A"
I'm reminded of the dialogue between Andrei and Teophanes in Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev.
I'm bad catholic. Not a fan of objectivism. But people throughout their lives develop their own ideologies. Objectivism was a bit of a secular alternative to socialism and mainstream Christianity in America. Also a way to confront crime whether in real life or in the fiction of comic book characters.
A funny thing, Question gets paired up with Huntress in the JL cartoon. Maybe a nod Silk Spectre in Watchmen. In the comic books she is allegedly catholic, right?
Then she had a kid with Catman.
The idea is simple.. you must choose good or evil.
The Question repeats the A is A thing with Lex Luthor in a speech in the Justice League Unlimited.
The way the colors or the costume is described, Mr. A is more or less the prototype for Moon Knight and moreso Khonshu in current context
Where can i read it?
Ditko ended up elaborating further on the Spider-Man credit. It wasn't that he felt he was the sole creator, he was upset the Stan "considered" him the co-creator. Ditko felt that the co-creator status was a yes/no statement. By saying he "considered" Steve the co-creator Stan Lee was saying that he didn't really believe it. And, I'm inclined to agree with Ditko, especially after Stan Lee admitted in a 2007 documentary that he never once felt Steve Ditko was the co-creator of Spider-Man.
ua-cam.com/video/wgRZO42Si_8/v-deo.htmlsi=GSm1kjAWQvPMAYWz
This is one of the many reasons why I find it ridiculous that some people say Ditko was the primary creator of Spider-Man. His philosophy was about the most anti-Spidey thing imaginable.
Just because he has a philosophy different from a character he created doesn't mean he didnt create the character. He was the sole creator of Dr. Strange and yet that character lacks any other objectivist philosophy he had irl. The truth is that Ditko kept for the most part his beliefs out of comics, only including them when asked or if it was indie work.
@@dakota4384 Dude, Ditko WASN’T the sole creator of Dr Strange. It was a Stan Lee Steve Ditko collaboration. And while I agree that the author can have a different philosophy to the character, Steve Ditko usually tried to put as much of his own philosophy as he could allow into the characters. The Question, Hawk and Dove, and Mr A are all examples of this and they read drastically different from characters he collaborated on like Dr Strange or Spider-Man.
@@thedukeofchutney468 No, Strange is as testimony from several at the time entirely a Ditko creation.
@@thedukeofchutney468 As well, The Question, Hawk and Dove were both works that he was told to put his beliefs into by higher ups, with the og Hawk and Dove being far more than political left and right.
No. He's a hero.
Amazing use of I eat Cannibal at 3:42. Please tell me other people caught that.
I don't think anyone else caught it. Good job!
5:35 sounds exactly like Atlas Shrugged. I actually liked the book a lot, but the 60 page radio lecture was ridiculous.
I find it to be a really abhorrent ideology but I do admire someone’s dedication to values and beliefs so deviated from the standard as well as the artistry involved. There’s always something special about a piece of art that’s a window into a specific persons mind especially when it’s not tying to be appealing necessarily or shaving off the rough edges to be now palatable. Over all I think the views expressed in Mr.A to be an almost uniquely American kind of sickness where we see everyone as solely responsible for their outcomes and as a result blunt any empathy compassion or sense of mercy necessary to actually be good to each other. Strange and evocative, impressive and somewhat gross all at the same time.
You belong on Reddit with the other normies.
@@nordicwarrior5014 I love you
@@ataraxia7439 You don't know what love is.
@@nordicwarrior5014 nonsense habibi
Excellent revamp. Interesting as it might be to discuss, I reckon I'll just leave the subject of Objectivism alone.
I hear you on that, man. It could turn into an inescapable rabbit hole discussion.
Not on the subject, but you should do a video on Stary Bullets
That is upcoming! It's one I've been meaning to do for a loooong time.
Mr a is the ultimate vigilante
Seems to be a forefather to Rorschach & punisher. It’s not any different than all the sjw bs that marvel & dc puts out now. Seems like a interesting character
Subtitles in this video make Ayn Rand into Iron Rant.
I just landed her from Cracked--looks like a channel I should investigate!
Great review; are Mr A Stories that bad?
I high-seas'd it a few days ago because I was thinking of making a parody (not OF Mr A, more 'through the lens of' Mr A) and... yes, they are. The "Right to Kill" and "Count Rouge" ones are ...ok. The others are really just illustrated essays.
Count Rouge is a great villain, actually. He was wasted in those comics.
@@michaelmartin9022 They're really bad essays on panel tbh.
Now that I think about it it seems like Mr. E from the books of magic is a parody/ send off to Mr A :D
I am also MR.A
Well put, especially calling Mr A "oddly fascinating". I've read a few of these stories and they really are some of the worst comics I've ever seen, but it's such a strong, blunt example of one man ideologically shadowboxing imaginary opponents one after the other that I can't help but want to learn more
Much like the characters in atlas shrugged, his real power is smugly droning until you objectively want to die
It only sounds like droning if you refuse to listen.
@@_Iscream I think I digested the point lol
You're mistaken about Atlas Shrug's "smugly droning" : their speech (and actions) show insight and standing up for their values with integrity and reflect opposing the regime that tries violating their liberty.
Sometimes straight forward, no nonsense, moral plays are fun. Sure in the real world there are all sorts of grey, but it's nice when a plot isn't complicated with sympathetic villains or corrupt heroes... every now and then at least anyway.
Also, I find it interesting that the top comment is basically someone wanting this character portrayed as the villain, against the question (which is already just this character, but transformed by another writer as a more left-wing critique of the original). Given who Steve Ditko is, and what happened to all his other well known works, I just imagine he wouldn't be particularly happy about he's work being transformed like that.
Ditko outright admits he doesn’t like gray characters. He has a strict black and white morality with his writing. A is A to him.
Would’ve been interesting to see a Ditko take on Casey Jones. 😆
Man
Ann rand is such a hypocrite
But this guy is like jack chick
There is a sense of irony in the fact that this comic, as Steve Ditko's morality, was black and white.
Mr. A was interesting. An independent comic that was truly about conceptual ideas, and not about simply throwing in sex and violence and drugs into comics. So very different from both the mainstream and the undergrounds. It should have been food for thought for most people, even if they ultimately disagreed, but too many simply want to claim hurt feelings and dismiss it as juvenile, absurd, "unrealistic" (as opposed to say, the realism of superheroes?) or some other handy insult.
Of course, not all of Ditko's independent work is about his Objectivist beliefs or 'preachy'. Look at Ditko's "H" series, for example, if you can find it.
Ditko's "H" series is just as much about his moral and philosophical beliefs as "Mr. A." is. It just emphasizes different parts of his world view.
Ditko's Mr A work is nothing but classical liberal trite that hinges in the brink of fascism.
@@CosmoShidan A philosophy dedicated to the protection of individual rights is on 'the brink of fascism?" Right, sure it is [/sarc]. Besides, if it's so 'trite", why are so many people so insanely bothered by it, like you? Just give it a rest and ignore it already. A dead comic book creator can't do you any harm, can they? Silly comments like this tell us far more about *you* than they do about Ditko or Mr. A.
@@macsnafu Because Objectivism is the current ideology of the Republican party of America, and it has gone full-blown fascist while the Democrats are next. The same ideology that Ditko's character advocates for, and is best it stays buried. And it's on the brink of fascism because Mr. A labels anyone who doesn't fit into his morally superior position is the enemy, ergo becomes "the other" to Mr. A's "self". Liberals do this sort of thing when they claim that someone who infringes on rights should be punished or rehabilitated (brainwashed) rather than creating a restorative relationship between victim and convicted. This goes to show that Alan Moore is probably right that superheroes are right-wing.
@@CosmoShidan And now I know you're delusional. There's practically nothing Objectivist about the Republican Party, especially with the populist Trump as president. If they were anywhere near Objectivist, Rand Paul would have gotten the Republican nomination, not Trump. Trump and Mr. A have nothing in common in their views.
I might agree that, traditionally, superheroes tended to be right-wing, as they were primarily there to protect the status quo, but modern comics are far past the very minimal political influence of traditional Silver Age or even the Bronze Age of comics. And Alan Moore's own Watchmen proves it, as Ozymandias sought to create a new status quo instead of protecting the existing status quo.
Could you not say that all people go after others who believe or act in a way we find wrong?
Was that Toto Coelo?
Impossible, Steve Ditko doesn't write bad comics much less is he a contradiction because if that's the case there are no super heroes and there is no inherent good, in fact you can see all of this in the comic book industry Ditko worked in with the end result being ambiguously written heroes who all either aimlessly kill enemies in combat but I villains or act like batman and think going around beating the shit out of a super villain and putting him away but don't realize that they are as implicit in said villains crimes every time he gets out and kills people.
A is A and good is good but evil is much easier to write, to give in to lazy platitudes and misunderstanding Steve Ditko and more importantly pushing off Ayn Rand who literally gave the USA it's road map (not that we didn't already have one with characters like the shadow,doc savage, Solomon Kane or the avenger) to building its own comic book mythos in any format weather it was capes, cowboys or science fiction.
That is why Mr.A succeeds where Alan Moore,Neil Gaiman,Garth Ennis and many other hacks who write him off today for daring to be clean cut line between good and evil! BECAUSE IM A WORLD OF A MORAL HACKS THE WORST THING YOU CAN BE IS A MAN OF PRINCIPLE AND GOOD! Fuck off with your Wikipedia level diatribe written by some leftoid volunteer with a Soviet flag up his or her ass.
Is there a reason Toto Coelo is in there??
Mr. A is Steve Ditko’s Sonichu, prove me wrong
@smileysuburban8146 He reminds me Of Ditko's Stardust The Super Wizard,as in a morally grey at best 'character' Who is a Gary Stu and The Writer (Steve Ditko & Fletcher Hanks) views as the ultimate,supreme,ideal godly hero who is Downright Evil at worst.
It appears that Mr. A’s superpower is being a Boomer
Mr. A was a better character than the Question.
Someone who liked the Mr.A comics could make a good essay deconstructing the series, it’s just hard to enjoy someone talking about something they don’t like
Exactly.
Wouldn't someone making a video with a bias for a character be equally as bad as someone with a bias against the character?
You judge Mr. A too harshly! Rand's objectivism is one side, one terminus, of the proverbial pendulum. The other side? I live surrounded by rationalizers and self-pitying manipulators; trust me, it often turns sick making.
great video I will definitely have to check out mr. a comic book I strongly agree with this philosophy.
The "philosophy" of Ayn Rand.
More like the sociopathy of Ayn Rand.
"I got mine - fuck you"
@@funkyweapon1981 butt hurt collectivists detected
I'm a HUGE Ditko fan BUT I've nevebeen crazy about Mr.A! The art is MAGNIFICENT but the seemingly endless dogmatic ramblings are just boring! I prefer his little morality plays with various, semi anonymous thugs, thugettes and the other lowlifes who populated Ditko's worlds! In some ways, Ditko's stories reminded me of JOHNNY CRAIG's work when he was
at EC Comics, writing and drawing horrific crime fiction for CRIME SUSPENSESTORIES and to a lesser extent, THE VAULT OF HORROR! While artistically,one could argue that Ditko was Craig's equal, he never matched Craig's restraint, who would let the story proceed without jumping on a soap box!
I had no problem with Ditko"s wanting to keep his personal life his own business! My religion doesn't encourage idol worship and as Ditko said, he chose to let his work speak for itself;. other former comic artists and writers felt the same way and I respect that!
There is more to the philosophy behind the character than "I am right, you are wrong." The thesis of basically every Mr. A. story is "Those who initiate force or deceive others are doomed to misfortune, for others will treat them accordingly. Any who refuse to treat them accordingly are doomed to the same fate." Also, Mr. A. doesn't really believe in self-sacrifice. Objectivists don't like Altruism. There is one Mr. A. story that is legitimately good. "Death Vs Lovesong." It has no dialogue. So there is no sermonizing, and you can have fun drawing your own conclusions about the characters' motivations and what they represent.
I loved the joke in Futurama when the sewer library got the books that were flushed and Bender noted all there was is "crumpled porno and Ayn Rand". Love it when objectivism gets dunked on
That gag was written by John Schwartzwelder, an Ayn Rand devotee.
1:12 "need to force others to conform to his beliefs regarding proper, moral behaviour."
Not quite true. Mr A doesn't go round beating up drunks, though that behaviour is not consistent with his beliefs.
It's only when someone is violating others' rights (by coercion, or threat thereof), that he dispenses justice.
It's only his belief in the *proper manner for adult interaction* (that it must be by mutual consent in the absence of force) that he enforces his views - he doesn't initiate force, he punishes its initiation.
I suppose this would of been done better if he argued against valid points? I don't see the problem with a book that primarily argues a philosophy.
Steve your on to something.the only person i can think of capable of turning this into a reality is mike notarile.
Some disdain I hear in your voice? Mr. A seemed like a simple prototype to get a point across. A foundation so to speak. The Question was a more complete ideal. Its a breath of fresh air compared to the quasi-liberal/comunist/socialist leanings in comics.
Don't take that to mean I did not enjoy your vid, or that I believe to know your ideals. Keep up the amazing content. Not many people can review/overview/disect comics the way YOU can.
Rorschach is literally a parody of Mr. A meant to show how dumb and insane his beliefs are
@@k_anth And yet Rorschach was the only chapter who was not a pussy. The only one who saw that what was happening was wrong and did not play along.
Seems to me that he was the only one not insane.
Tom King did some really interesting stuff with a Mr. A like character in Rorschach, except rather than being a objectivist it's the opposite.
Also, in the Justice League cartoon there's a scene where the Question is going to kill Lex Luthor and he says, "A is A, Lex is Lex" before he does.
I've just finished reading them. The stories are so dull. They're not genuine drama; the narratives are just contrived moral lectures. There's no genuine characters. No-one is a believable human being. They are totally without humour. They're screeds. I love Ditko as an artist. He doesn't know how to write, whether or not I agree wtih his philosophical statements. All that said, theye're still one step up from a lot of Golden Age superhero comics (I know Mr A is not from the golden age; bear with me) in that they at least acknowledge some emotional conflict in 'criminals', even if the philosophy is unmerciful. Golden age comics were pure propaganda and presented criminality as a simple choice, mostly ignoring any issue of societal responsibility. Ditko's 'criminals' are at least shown to be wretched and tormented, even if (in Mr A's eyes) they don't deserve mercy.
The reason I make the golden age comparison is that it is the material the youthful Ditko would have been imbibing and it probably had a big warping influence on his mentality. Golden age comics WERE, in my opinion, terribly bad for their young readers, but not for the reasons a Werthamite would give. They gave a very false impression of the world and of society. They were indoctrinal propaganda and espoused only conservative (as in 'established', not politically affiliated), proscribed thought. It's also strange that Ditko would invent a character like this when in his own life he never satisfactorily stood up to his own evildoers (the comics companies like Marvel that cheated him), in fact remained in servitude to them. But that probably is the explanation. For all his talk of defending the innocent, Ditko couldn't bear to see HIMSELF as a victim and so espouses this philosophy that helps justify his own inaction whilst letting him dramatize himself through this character as someone impossibly principaled and strong. I think Ditko was messed up by reading comics and then messed up worse by being in the rotten industry that published them.
Does Mr. A have a Type A personality?
I bet he also is of the blood type A positive.
Again, another arrogant antihero. Alliteration. Almost.
Ditko was a raving lunatic.
I liked Steve Ditko's art a lot and I have respect for him for sticking to his principles, even if his principles are based on the pseudo intellectual ramblings of Rand.
I liked your spin on this.