Atlas Bugged: Assessing Ditko's Transition from Spider to Beetle / R. W. Watkins

Atlas Bugged

Untitled backup story from Captain Atom No. 83

It is in the four untitled backup stories found in Captain Atom Nos. 83 through 86 that the new Blue Beetle most resembles Ditko’s Spider-Man. Much of this has to do with the fact that Ditko is credited with only “concept and art” on these stories, while Garry Friedrich was responsible for the scripting. Whether Ditko entered into this arrangement by choice or at the demand of editor Dick Giordano, and to what degree Friedrich was involved in conceiving the original stories, we cannot be sure. Whatever the case, the creative ‘assembly line’ behind these four stories is reminiscent of the Ditko-Lee working relationship which produced the early Spider-Man stories. And Friedrich seems to have been drawing on Stan Lee’s penchant for narration, hipster slang and youth-culture references, for not only is there a considerable amount of narrative clarification, but also a title superhero who utters such exclamations as “Nuts!” and “This is too much”, and makes reference to “late, late shows”, his “swingin’est hideout”, The Lone Ranger, and even The Beatles.

Also found in abundance in the backup stories are sound-effect words (“WHACK!”, “BIIIFF!”, “KATHUNK!”, etc.). I am assuming that letterer Herb Field was responsible for this, for such onomatopoeia is absent from Ditko’s subsequent Blue Beetle comic book.

In stark contrast to the four backup stories in Captain Atom, the five issues that comprise Ditko’s Blue Beetle series are, by and large, a solo effort. Scripter Gary Friedrich never contributed to the series, while Herb Field merely supplied the lettering for the feature story from No. 4 (‘The Men of the Mask’). The Vari-Typer-composed generic lettering found in most of the stories, in fact, is credited wittily to ‘A. Machine’! Similarly, the scripting is credited to one ‘D.C. Glanzman’, who was the brother of comics writer Sam Glanzman. According to Charlton editor Dick Giordano (as quoted in Comic Book Artist No. 9), the name usage was allowed by Glanzman upon Ditko’s request. Whether Ditko felt that his writing might not be taken seriously, or if there was some other reason behind the quasi pseudonym, is open to speculation. Other than editor Giordano’s overseeing, the only other ‘outside help’ on the series took the form of Bob Agnew’s lettering for the cover of No. 3 and its feature story (‘The Madmen’), and Warren Savin’s (AKA Steve Skeates’s) scripting and Bob Agnew’s lettering on a backup story featuring The Question in No. 4. (A closer look at the five Question backup stories from the series would be better suited to an essay dedicated to the Question character in general.)

The title of the first story and its accompanying introduction (“Come with us as the all-new Blue Beetle... BUGS THE SQUIDS”) immediately conjures memories of Peter Parker the “shutterbug” and Spider-Man the pesky “bug” or “insect” that a host of villains so wish to “squash”. Visually and plot-wise, this feature story owes more than a nod to the story arc of Amazing Spider-Man Nos. 30 through 33. Todd Van and his ‘squids’ bear a striking (and undeniable) resemblance to Doctor Octopus’s squad of amphibious high-level marauders. When they emerge from the salt water to scale buildings with the help of suction-cupped costumes, it’s downright uncanny.

Blue Beetle No. 1 (left) and Amazing Spider-Man No. 31

Also on a visual level, the leader of the ‘Men of the Mask’ in the fourth issue harkens back to the Chameleon, introduced in Amazing Spider-Man No. 1. The Chameleon’s impersonation theme is reinforced when a man thought to be a resurrected Dan Garret turns out to be a masked imposter and former colleague of Garret by the name of Dan Greer.

As well, Farley Fleeter’s jester-garbed gang of acrobatic thieves introduced in No. 3, the Madmen, might conceivably have been derived from the Ringmaster’s motley crew of circus baddies in Amazing Spider-Man Nos. 16 and 21.

But all similarities with the Lee-Ditko version of Spider-Man end there. Unlike his earlier work at Marvel, all of Ditko’s Blue Beetle stories are decidedly adult in tone and focus. There are no subplots involving teenage romance, college rivalries, or varsity football stars named Flash. Unlike the four backup stories scripted by Friedrich, the only hipster slang and youth-culture references are uttered by the young bohemians and left-wing radicals in ‘The Blue Beetle Faces the Destroyers of Heroes’ in No. 5.

And Ditko’s treatment of such 1960s counter-culture figures in this story is far less innocuous and humourous than his and Lee’s treatment of similar campus protesters in Amazing Spider-Man No. 38. Ditko makes it clear — in this and the related Question backup story — that he means business when it comes to his Randian objectivist ideals. Such matters are no joke. His negative portrayals of ‘hipsters’ and ‘dropouts’ as unambitious and defeatist stand in stark contrast to the cozy coffeehouse scenes of Peter Parker and friends that were starting to punctuate the pages of Amazing Spider-Man at the hands of Stan Lee and John Romita around the same time (mid to late 1967).

Two different worlds: Blue Beetle No. 5 (left) and Amazing Spider-Man No. 53

Then there’s the little matter of Ditko’s scripting in general, which tends to be as cold and mechanical as the generic typeset lettering which conveys it. It also tends to be preachy, with characters like the Beetle or Vic Sage extolling objectivist principles in the best tradition of Rand’s John Galt (in Atlas Shrugged). The lack of explanatory narration (of the Lee or Friedrich variety) often leaves confusing if not inexplicable ‘gaps’ between panels, resulting in awkward scene changes. Problems involving Ditko’s writing style are compounded by the numerous typos and missing punctuation in the typeset lettering (regardless of whom was responsible for using the Vari-Typer).

Ditko had truly established himself as a major name in comics by the mid 1960s, and his version of the Blue Beetle was a consummate creation that definitely replaced Spider-Man as his flagship character in the mainstream context; but how has Ditko’s version of the hero fared in the decades since the stories’ original publication? Has it stood the proverbial test of time? And—probably more importantly for some—how does the Blue Beetle series stand up today in comparison with those first thirty-eight issues of Amazing Spider-Man that feature Ditko’s talents?

There certainly can be no question as to the quality and integrity of the artwork that encapsulates the Blue Beetle stories — in spite of any deficiencies or shortcomings inherent in the Charlton printing process. His trademark expressionism, exotic settings and geometric shapes speak for themselves. Like virtually all of Ditko’s art, it has most definitely stood the test of time. Sadly, this doesn’t necessarily hold true for the narrative and thematic elements, however.

As discussed above, Ditko’s scripting on Blue Beetle tends to be cold and lacking in moxie. It’s also in short supply when it comes to narration. Such scripting does not lend itself to smooth and credible character development. Gary Friedrich’s scripting on the four backup stories from Captain Atom is more reminiscent of Stan Lee’s scripting on the early Amazing Spider-Man, and therefore more reader-friendly in its hipster vernacular. Read objectively today, these stories can be easily overlooked if not dismissed as generic 1960s superhero stories, but at least at this point Ditko had not yet begun to explicitly employ the Randian objectivist ideologies that would set him apart from his mainstream contemporaries and ultimately alienate so many of his readers.

For the sake of comparing favorably with the benchmark that is Marvel’s 1960s output, it is a shame that the Ditko-Friedrich working relationship could not have persisted into the Blue Beetle series. As they stand, the stories are far from generic superhero tales by any standards, then or now, and rank as philosophically and thematically original in the annals of mainstream comics. However, such originality could not compete in the 1960s with the ongoing revolution that was Marvel Comics, and part of that revolution included Ditko’s own previous work on Amazing Spider-Man. Yes, Ditko could be his own worst enemy, having had a visionary trend-tapper like Stan Lee for a scripter and editor.

Under Stan Lee’s editorship, Marvel produced what might be described as the comic-book equivalent of Tom Wolfe’s ‘new journalism’. Starting with The Fantastic Four in 1961, Lee upped the ante by—as Rolling Stone put it in 1971—letting the superheroes “live in the real world”. The company’s flagship titles also gradually adopted a centre-to-left sociopoliticial perspective, albeit a subtly implied one. This worked hand in hand with the decidedly youthful characters—both heroes and supporting ‘civilians’—that were increasingly utilised, coffeehouse lingo and all. True, there were some complaints from younger readers that Lee’s beatnik slang and dialogue were already a tad outdated by the late 1960s, but the message was still loud and clear: We’re hip, we’re alternative, we’re open to change, and our sympathies lie first and foremost with the angst-ridden and disenfranchised youth of today.

This was in stark contrast to the very adult world of Blue Beetle, in which the younger generation is absent at best and openly condemned by the title superhero as initiative-lacking, left-wing losers at worst. In a superhero market dominated by the ‘hip’ realism of Marvel and the generic lowbrow contrivances that still defined DC, Ditko’s Rand-inspired content was not anything that the vast majority of Western youth could relate to in the ‘Summer of Love’. Such comics were not conducive to kindling interest amongst a readership which had been accustomed to Ditko’s collaborations with Lee on Amazing Spider-Man. The fact that many of the older readers now identified with the counter culture didn’t help matters either.

Recently, on his Marvel in the Silver Age blog, British comics writer Alan McKenzie (2000 AD, Doctor Who Monthly) made the following observation:

“[...] I’m one of the people who thinks Stan did a beyond-terrific job with his scripting of Marvel’s comics. Though I agree that Kirby’s and Ditko’s plots were ground-breaking and superb, it was the scripting skills of Lee that pulled it all together into a coherent package, gave the entire Marvel line its own unique voice and was largely responsible for rocketing Marvel to the top of the sales charts during the last half of the 1960s.

Though there are those who would disagree with this, you only have to look at the work Kirby and Ditko did on their own to see that neither had much appreciation, or even understanding, of characterisation. And if they didn’t understand that, then they could only ever see Stan’s contributions as interference.” (‘...Spins a Web, Any Size’, July 2015)

Frankly, I think McKenzie has officially stated what a lot of people have been thinking for decades. As is evident in so many ‘renegade’ mainstream series, an artist’s mastery of drawing and inking does not necessarily translate into an aptitude for plotting and scripting—Ditko’s stint on Blue Beetle being no exception.

Most detrimentally, Ditko’s Blue Beetle stories lack adequate characterisation, realism, and a youth-oriented perspective. This is particularly true of the five issues that comprise the ill-fated Blue Beetle series. It is evident that the fewer people involved in his comics’ production, the truer the stories are to Ditko’s own vision; and the more faithful the stories are to Ditko’s objectivist convictions (e.g., Blue Beetle No. 5), the more likely they are to be seen as being on the wrong side of history today. In fact, one might say that when Ditko scores points for authenticity and originality, he loses points in the historical long run.

Reassessed today, Blue Beetle is a well-drawn and interesting experiment that was ultimately out of sync with the prevailing sociopolitical outlooks of the times, left and right—both in the comics industry and in the North American collective psyche. On the other hand, Amazing Spider-Man was the product of a rather bold new approach to superheroes that tapped into the zeitgeist of the era. Marvel’s approach quickly became—and remains—the industry’s standard (for better or worse). The truth of the matter is that we’ve been living in a Stan Lee world now for over five decades; and one cannot escape the fact that those 38 issues of Amazing Spider-Man drawn by Ditko were among the earliest in the so-called ‘Marvel Age of Comics’, serving as a template for generations of comics to come. They therefore hold an undeniably significant place in comic-book history. This is something that cannot be matched by Ditko’s Blue Beetle, which—like the whole of Charlton’s superhero series—was plagued by anomalies of fringe philosophy and indifferent typeset lettering.

And the anomalies were obviously reflected in sales—or lack thereof, for by mid 1968, Charlton had cancelled all five titles in their Action Heroes line of comics, including Blue Beetle and Captain Atom. Once again, Ditko found himself without a superhero in which to invest his talents, but this time it was not of his own volition.

Alas, maybe it’s no wonder that the younger half of the population believe that the Silver Age of superheroes began and ended with DC and Marvel. After all, DC would go on to acquire the Action Heroes line from a disintegrating Charlton for a song, and Ditko would eventually make his way back to Marvel. Nothing rewrites history like the comics.

Blue Beetle images taken from Captain Atom No. 83 and Blue Beetle Nos. 1, 2 and 5. Copyright 1966, 1967 and 1968 Charlton Publications.

Spider-Man images taken from Amazing Spider-Man Nos. 1, 31 and 53. Copyright 1963, 1965 and 1967 Marvel Entertainment Group.