THE HAWK AND THE DOVE
Well, I wrote this first draft the night in
February that Jon Cooke asked for submissions to the COMIC BOOK ARTIST
magazine debuting in April. I literally wrote it to send as a simple e-mail to the Ditko
mailing list, and then when I checked my mail, he asked for submissions. I thought it
was fate and sent it to him, saying that it was a ver rough first draft, but if he liked it enough,
I would bang it into shape for him. He wrote back, saying he was intrigued, as he had little Ditko
material to go with, and that he would get back to me with what he thought. He went so far
as to include it in a list of possible articles for Issue #1 in a posting to all the
comic-mailing lists. It is now April and I have yet to hear from him again. I haven't 'banged it
into shape' for its appearance here, rather letting you see the raw, original product. Who
knows? Perhaps, like my review of 'Shadows And Light #1' in Ditko-mania (a review I didn't
even know was published until I received the issue #57 from Wild Bill Hall), I'll open the Comic
Book Artist magazine and find my article in there. Until then, here is.....
''The HAWK And The DOVE''
Tracing Ditko's Progression Of
Objectivism
In gaining a firmer grip of Ditko, and Mr. A.'s
theories of "objectivism", one often thinks about
writing a comic with Sir Steve, putting one of his type
of characters against someone who shelters the opposing view
to his cold, hard theoretical stance. It could be called,
in theory, "Theory And Reality" (there's a seller!).
Ditko's character would play the cold, hard theorist who
follows his principles to their extremes, unwavering in
ANY circumstance. The opposing character would still share
the same desire to see ''good'' done, but would mete out the
brand of justice according to the circumstance of the
situation. Ditko's ''hero'' believing that nature is either
determined at birth or a conscious choice one cannot go back
on, while his opposite would see an opportunity for second chances
(depending on the circumstance of the opponent/victim),
once justice had been served.
Whereas Mr. A., in the 1978 COMIC CRUSADER STORYBOOK story
("Death Vs. Love-Song"), let the villain perish in the flames,
his partner would be inclined would save the antagonist in question, beat him
with in an inch of his life and drop him in prison for 20 years!
Ditko's character : the up-front, in-your-face type; his partner,
manipulating situations and people to achieve their shared desired
ends for ''good''. The core question being, under scrutiny,
which approach stands up best, and do both characters
simply feed/create the problems they are trying to solve?
SHOWCASE #75 from DC in 1968 (1st app. of THE HAWK
and THE DOVE), as well as issue #1 of the series, follows an interesting path
on Ditko's road to the formation of his "objectivist" theories
(Ditko's theories being plain-as-day in hindsight). Unlike THE
QUESTION, who's main character is the objectivist, and all around
him are either part of the problem, or not part of the solution
(hence part of the problem), in SHOWCASE #75, Ditko presents three points
of the triangle he soon would have shaved down to one.
Hank (HAWK) and Don (DOVE) Hall open the book in the middle
of a war/anti-war rally clash; Hank espousing the "might-
is-right" turn and Don clinging to the "anything to make peace"
compromising stance (hence, the character names and traits).
In the middle is the father - a judge - who follows the
letter of the law to a tee, even though it would mean jailing
his own sons if he ever discovered their identities. J. Jonah
Jameson puts down vigilantes to mask his own inner securities
but Judge Irwin Hall hides behind no facade in his beliefs
concerning justice. His values are ''true'' and based on society's
set conceptions of justice.
Both sons espouse their views to their father, who denounces
both for the irrationalities in their stances. ''The ONLY way to
solve problems is through logic'', he says, just before one of
the gang-members, who's boss he has just put away, heaves a bomb into
his chambers, setting off the chain of events leading to the
creations of the two costumed heroes.
What does it say about society that we "like" the character of
Hank more than we do the ''Baby! Bleeding Heart! Sissy! Weeper!''
to which he refers to Don in the last panel of issue #1 of the series?
Ditko goes to great lengths to show that The HAWK's overzealous
actions cause almost as much damage to the people he is trying to
protect, than do the "Drop-Outs" (the main antagonists in issue #1).
Don may be trying to hide the coward he really feels himself to be
inside, but it can be easily argued that Hank knows his theories
of ''smash first'' involve direct physical violence that only his
powers as The Hawk allows him to mete out. He fears, down deep
as his normal shelf, he would be just as afraid of force if faced
with it head on - if forced to defend his views in reality.
In the character of Judge Hall, Ditko has yet to throw off the
boundaries of social mores that guide his objectivist theories
regarding vigilantism. The Judge's views may seem extreme, but they
represent the "truth" that society has mapped out for itself; he is
only their defender.
The Mr. A. story in the COMIC CRUSADER STORYBOOK shows a
vigilante, by his very definition, operating outside of the law
and the confines that society has placed on justice. Somewhere
down the line, society's truth became a moral truth for Ditko.
In ''A View Of Justice'' (THE COLLECTOR #27, '73, a fanzine by
Bill Wilson), Ditko places HIS character in a war-torn nation, captured
by rebel forces who need him to perform surgery on their ailing
leader. The doctor will not do it, even under threat of others
in the party being harmed (in fact, the leader has a group of
people massacred to show the doctor he means business). Ditko's
character accuses the rebel leader of being in the same moral
boat as the corrupt government whom they are attempting to
overthrow.
Here, we have the middle of the seesaw for Ditko. In theory,
a corrupt government has broken all of society's mores (something
the Judge was defending) but Ditko no longer cares, placing greater
emphasis of the poor moral judgments of each leader, RATHER than
worrying about the ''good'' of the society being imperiled. It
is no longer important, as a first concern, to Ditko that society's
laws are upheld, wanting instead for the moral issues that guide
each person to take precedence. It is interesting to note that
Ditko's doctor stresses that it is unjustifiable for the means
to be justified by the ends, if the ends do not represent the
moral good of the individual.
Yet, in the Mr. A. story in question, the villain is left to die
in a blazing fire (thereby achieving Mr. A.'s "ends"),
justified by Ditko that the amoral person reached his end by
his own evil devices, even though society would hold Mr. A.
liable for allowing a man to die when he clearly could have
saved him.
Perhaps this is why that last Mr. A. story is dialogue-less.
For Ditko, there are none of society's laws left to be espoused -
just a silent, moral judgment to be passed on the antagonist
by the fault of his own actions.
If you have any stories or articles concerning
Ditko's Hawk And The Dove, please E-MAIL me.
You will receive full credit for your contributions.