I shake my fist at you, Brian Cronin.

"Alex Wilder was a traitor to the Runaways, a team he formed and led, from the very beginning."

And it made no sense what so ever.

I think in the "small-panel" era, Ditko's stuff was muh, MUCH better than Kirbys. Ditko's more of an introverted artist, if that makes any sense. He's good at drawing character's psychological states, while Kirby was this big, bombastic extrovert artist, who's best work was with these big-ass panels.

Here's the oddest one: Power Pachyderms #1, by Blaustein and D'Agostino http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=212005&zoom=4

There's at least one more comic book cover homage that I know of that has not been named yet, and two "comic-related publication" covers.

I don't think anyone's gotten this one.

Thor #427 is an Uncanny #1 homage. I was cleaning out some long boxes and I found this. (I was a massive Excalibur fan in its beginning)

So while I agree that Rand was a nut in her personal life and there were many cultlike aspects to her circle, the same can be said about a lot of the leaders of left-wing causes and groups a leftie like O'Neil subscribed to. This is not to excuse Rand and the shortcomings of her belief system but rather to say that many O'Neil's philosophies had hypocritical stances, charismatic and dangerous gurus, rigid internal rituals and redefinition of sexual mores, yet he never gets the flak for his belief system Ditko does. I'm just saying that I wish there was equal treatment. Like, if people were calling Englehart and O'Neil and Ditko all brainwashed kooks that'd be fine. Or if they were all lionized for being loyal to their visions, okay. It's just the selective harping on Ditko's beliefs while giving everyone else a pass that bugs me.

Hmm.

See, I would have said "Big Shoulder Pads". But that might just be me...

I do have a lotta respect for Ditko; He seems like a smart guy and really fiercely believed in what he was doin', and Mister A. and his stuff for Charlon was some of the first really PERSONAL work for comics.

And, really, I think "fuck off, the work speaks for itself" is a fine attitude when the work so obviously does.

I wouldn't say, for example, that Frank Miller's been "brainwashed", even though I do think he's a fairly conservative writer. But Ditko leaves himself a bit more open to those charges than most conservatives. (For more on the quirks of Objectivism, I recommend the somewhat-strangely-titled "Why People Believe Weird Things", by Michael Shermer. It's a good book in general, covering a wide variety of topics and giving some nice analysis to the way the human brain works.)

http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/296/

Part two (which you can jump to by changing the 296 of the url to 297, has the first story reprinted in its entirety. It may be overbearing in message, but I do think it's more intellectually developed and emotionally intense than some of the socially conscious stuff O'Neil, Skeates and Haney were trying to do over at DC at the time. One unfair thing about Ditko that I hate is that he's always mocked and called "brainwashed", preachy or a cult member because he believed in a conservative philosophy, yet O'Neil is lionized and called principled, even though he was just as preachy and extreme, just because he was on the left. It's like if you have views from the right, you were a nut that was brainwashed into believing them, but if you have views from the left, you nobly came to those views through self-education, principled crusading and valor. Apparently no one can be brainwashed into being a lefty a

The Invisibles, the Filth, the X-men: All of 'em were ABOUT sociology. The Doom Patrol and Animal Man were about how we see reality. None of the three Vertigo series Seaguy, WE3, and Vinamarama were commentary on comics.

And, cheez, I just read Ditko's Static. It wasn't even strange, or surreal. Just pure formula. Ten page stories. Six pages of lectures on Randian principles. Four pages of punching. Annoying.