Sunday, November 15, 2020

And The Answer Is A!


One would be hard-pressed to find a more obnoxious hero than Steve Ditko's Mr. A. Created at just about the same time as Charlton's The Question, most folks see Mr. A as Ditko's Comics Code-approved Question unleashed into the wild of Indy publishing where he can really cut loose and express his opinions about justice and merit and who should live and who should die. Let me just say, that if you're a criminal and you're hanging by your fingertips over a deadly precipice don't think the "heroic" Mr. A is going to give you a hand. That's not his style. If your misdeeds brought you to this dangerous point, then you will just have to solve it on your own...or die. 


How do I know this? Well that's exactly the dilemma Mr. A was confronted with in his debut adventure in the pages of Wally Wood's Witzend first issue. A juvenile delinquent named "Angel" is tearing it up with all sorts of ill-mannered and criminal behavior resulting ultimately in kidnapping and attempted murder. Mr. A stops that but when Angel needs a hand to save his life after their fight, Mr. A specifically says he would not be doing that. Through his inaction he allows the criminal to fall to his death. Is that justice? Is that heroism? It's sure cold blooded, that's for certain and sounds more like warfare. 


You see the thing is that in Mr. A's universe that is no gray...literally and figuratively. In these stark black and white comic book yarns we are presented with crimes and actions which some, in a charitable nature, might deem mistakes rather than crimes. They might consider the perpetrators to be confused by upbringing or environment which send mixed messages about what is right and what is wrong and the limits of civilized behavior in regard to these concepts. Mr. A is not having any of that. There is "Good" represented by the white half of his business card and there is "Evil" represented by the black portion. There's gray, no blending or smudging, there are only absolutes determined by rigorous adherence to reason. Emotions and the charity they elicit are for weaklings and milksops. 


At first glance this hard-edged support of the good and condemnation of the evil seems worthy and even heroic. But for all the conversation, the question never even much asked in Mr. A's adventures is what is "Good" and what is "Evil". It's sort of assumed we all know that. A lot of it has to do with property rights as far as I can tell, with the stuff owned by those who produce being held sacrosanct and protected from the evil moochers and  takers. Little suggestion of a deeper understanding of why those have what they have and those who haven't don't. Like the mythological "American Dream" it's suggested that work will inevitably lead to good outcomes and doing otherwise is just inviting disaster. Suggestion that society might stack the deck is not really confronted or is just dismissed. Like the amateur social engineers who have taken a tiny bit if Any Rand's philosophy to justify unlimited avarice, in Mr. A the distinctions are just assumed to be obvious, detectible with only a little bit of "common sense" as is all too often evoked. 


Mr. A lives in an Old Testament universe in which an eye for an eye is the bedrock premise of justice. I suspect that Mr. A would find Jesus Christ's attitudes about poverty and charity and mercy just mewling nonsense having little to do with the rockem' sockem' real world we all live in. Mr. A never smiles, in fact he's incapable of smiling as his face is literally a solid mask evoking classical caucasian handsomeness. He looks through the eyeholes of his perfect mug onto a landscape less perfected and in sore need of transformation. He's all too ready to pitch in. 


Mr. A is actually hard-hitting investigative reporter Rex Graine, but unlike his Charlton counterpart Vic Sage, there's no suggestive of fancy gimmicks to change identities. Graine goes to his closet and puts on the stark white gear that announces Mr. A is back in town. His face actually a helmet of sorts to hide his human identity during these times when mere humanity will not do the job. He doesn't have superpowers, merely a dominating will and a creator who sees to it that his unblinking philosophy will win the day each and every time. There's no gray in Mr. A's universe and there's no doubt nor growth. He is not a human, he is a concept given human form. Reading Mr. A's adventures becomes increasingly difficult over the years as the prose dominates the story, slowing any hint of suspense or narrative momentum. It's rather like forcing everyone t read all the plaques as they journey through the museum. It's enlightening perhaps, but it takes a long time and can wear you out. 

Rip Off

5 comments:

  1. He lets the kid die, but the situation is that he's making a choice to save the woman Angel stabbed instead. To be fair, he does indeed say he wouldn't have saved Angel anyway, but I think the decision is the point.The woman,a social worker who believes in Angel, can't bring herself to get past the mores and ask for help. This story probably horrified Marvel/Ditko fans, especially in the era of pacifism when it appeared. There were enough incidents of Mr. A helping the innocent, sometimes children, and letting (sometimes helping) the evil to die. But to me (politically opposed to Ditko in every way I can think of) it was always about the choice, which was an unusual place for superhero comics to focus. In these stories, a lot of attention was not on the irredeemably evil, but on corruption. There was always the moment when Mr. A stepped in to warn someone that they were taking the first steps toward their own doom. There was that one story I remember where an ex-con, jailed by Rex Graine's testimony, managed to pull out of the spiral in time (rather than take revenge) and had a happy ending. I don't believe compromise is evil, as Ditko often suggests (sometimes it's self-preservation) but I always felt like Ditko was expressing a powerful point of view in comics about good vs.evil at a time where such comics had no point of view.
    And we now see examples in our own government of people compromising their ethics in order to survive politically, even at the cost of destroying the whole system. I wonder how Ditko would've reacted to this, because I can see him on both sides, having supported most right-wing politics and not necessarily interested in preserving collective rule.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The allure of "Objectivism" is the illusion of free will it offers the individual, assuming that we all exist psychologically apart from our environments and personal histories. The celebration of reason is a virtue, but the rejection of emotion is a flaw which forces the practitioner to ignore gobs of experiences. Living by an ethical code is a good thing if that ethical code is virtuous in the main. But what is virtue and society changes its general attitudes over the course of years, decades and centuries.

      The example I use is Huckleberry Finn who violates the ethical code of his Southern upbringing to befriend and assist the escaped slave Jim. We find Huck's behavior virtuous and even at moments heroic, but he didn't himself. He thought that he was resorting to crime to help a man he liked, allowing his emotion to overcome his reason which told him that he should turn in an escaped slave. Huck is convinced he is going to Hell because of his actions. It is feeling that rescues Huck from making what we and Twain saw as an evil decision. But the people of Hannibal wouldn't have agreed this was "good".

      Delete
  2. Yes Ditko and Mr. A in my opinion represented the vigilante style of justice and was indeed Ditko's point of view that there is no grey areas just black and white and if you compromise, it does not solve the problem.
    I have a a great admiration for Ditko's work but sometimes in trying to express his point of view he lost sight it is a comic and as Russ said back then comics did not have a point of view.
    The Question was a watered down version of Mr. A but occasionally as in the Question story in Blue Beetle 4 he did not care whether the bad guys survived.
    Ditko often conveyed his point of view in my opinion albeit in a more conservative manner in the Spiderman stories especially the episodes with the Green Goblin and whatever one's point of view concerning his views particularly in Mr. A his storytelling in my opinion as I have said before makes the Godfather in the comic book medium.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I too like Dikto best when his philosophy is present but informing a solid narrative with clear entertainment goals alongside the deeper desire to enlighten. The message is delivered much more effectively I think, but all too often the intensely devoted resort to screeds to hammer away at their audiences, so firmly sure of their positions that they cannot imagine anyone finding a real alternative.

      I'm guilty of that to some extent with the current President. He's such a clearly loathsome man, full of petty tortured desires that it colors my attitudes about his "policies" such as they are. There are nuggets of facts in most hateful philosophies that are buried deeply beneath terrifying evil attitudes. The racist can find a factoid here and there which seems in isolation to buttress their inclinations, but it doesn't make their attitudes "good" in any way. "Breaking the law" is seen as the reason for chasing people longing to escape a form of economic slavery, but of course we "break laws" everyday, small ones in the effort to live more effectively. Technicalities of this type don't eliminate the virtues of the Golden Rule, which if applied would make for a much safer and saner world. Ditko might argue that the ruthless consistency of Objectivism does that, but it's only an illusion of it, reducing the full-throated message of the Golden Rule to mere business transaction.

      Delete
  3. Yes totally agree Rip I look at our leader and he seems a pussy cat compared to yours Objectivism embraces a concept which is unachievable in my opinion, reality and reason are unattainable constantly but self-interest and capitalism are a different matter and blight the world as we know it.

    ReplyDelete