The problem with Occam's Razor is that everyone thinks their concept is the simplest one. It's too subjective to really be useful in the sorts of cases its usually applied to.

Are you going to correct the part about it being Marvel artwork and any speculation on how he felt about Marvel's art return contract, at least? Greg has confirmed the Charlton page I posted is the page he saw.

I see the sticking point. Maybe I should re-write that bit to make it clearer. It does require some specific esoteric knowledge of Ditkology.

In the scenario I believe (which I do not posit as "the truth" but as "a viable alternative to the common wisdom which better conforms to all known facts, subject to revision pending further evidence", which I thought was the point of this column), Ditko is fully aware of what conclusions Theakston has jumped to, and chose to play along without actually lying to Theakston.

"But, you ask, surely Ditko would have corrected Theakston if he was wrong? To that I say, you haven't read that much about Ditko, have you? Not volunteering information is entirely consistent with Ditko's behaviour. Now is the time to go back to the quote that opens this article and figure out why it's there."

So he knew why he was being offered a cutting board, and turned it down, I don't know, maybe because he didn't need one? You really have to read the full quote I open with in context to get the reasoning, but it's there.

There's not a Ditko "mystery" that Ditko himself could not clear up with a single statement, but he chooses to say "I know why I left Marvel but no one else in this universe knew or knows why".

“Steve, I will go down to the nearest art supply store and buy you a cutting board that will mend itself-a plastic cutting board that’s so smart that when you cut on it, it mends itself-and you’ll have the finest cutting board on the block.” “Nope,” Ditko replied, twisting the artwork-turned-cutting-board back around.

Theakston pleaded. “Steve, geez. That’s worth a fair amount of money. At the very least-damn, Steve-it’s an artifact. It’s an important piece of publishing history in terms of comics.”

The artist turned and pointed to the drapery-obscured window next to Theakston’s chair. “Lift that curtain up,” he said.

The curtain, the historian estimated, was about 18 inches off the floor. He pulled the drape aside and saw a stack of original artwork from Marvel standing roughly a foot-and-a-half high.

I think it supports Greg's belief that it was being used as a cutting board.

Why would that conversation go that way if it was NOT being used as a cutting board?

What, Ditko just thought Theakston was offering to buy him a cutting board out of nowhere?

Do you think Greg’s eye is so keen that he can tell the difference between cuts made by Ditko and cuts made by some production worker in Derby over 30 years earlier, based on a casual view of the art (remember, from his account he never seems to have touched the page)?

Basically, yeah, I think Greg would be able to tell whether the boards were currently being used as cutting boards or not.

My point is, if you're going to post the story, I think you should make it clear that
1) Greg at no time saw a blade in Ditko's hand cutting the page
2 ) Greg never says Ditko said words like "I was using the art as a cutting board", or answered "yes" or even nodded when asked about it

Details that people seem to invariably add when they read that poorly written Wizard article (that and some people seem convinced that it was a Spider-Man page, but that level of reading comprehension is beyond help).

COMIC URBAN LEGEND: Steve Ditko does not use the original art that Marvel has returned to him, except sometimes as CUTTING BOARDS!

STATUS: True

True? What part of that sentence is fully supported by a careful reading of Greg's account?

And I'm saying I asked Greg about it and he says he's sure they were being used as cutting boards.

I mean, Greg certainly knows the difference between a cutting board and a piece of art with some cuts on it, right?

And it's at THAT point that we just have to choose whether to believe Greg or not.

I didn't mean to imply that you were saying Greg was lying, because you specifically say you think he is NOT.

So it really does come down to whether you believe Greg or not, and I don't see any reason to believe he is just flat out making the story up.

Thanks for including the transcript from Wizard, though, proved very useful.

Both DC and Marvel used the Parade as the basis for storylines for a couple of years in the early 70's.

One year it spread across The Avengers (issue 119) Justice League of America (103)and Thor (217), with direct references to events in each comic in the others.

The Time Warner/Turner marriage wasn't until 2001. The Wizard of Oz co-published by DC and marvel was done 26 years PRIOR to that particular media giant marriage.

I'd have to go back to the books to see when DC was purchased by Warner, but right now my brain is saying it was sometime in the late 70's or very early 80's. (I could be wrong.)

When the book came out in 75, I was a whopping 11 years old and thought is was the dumbest thing I had ever seen and historical context aside, even today, I can't get past the 5th page.

THE GREAT OZ HAS SPOKEN