It could be a scene from Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged. A giant balloon of a famous graphic icon is being dragged down Fifth Avenue in New York City in the Thanksgiving Day Parade, while in a small studio a few blocks west, the designer of that icon works in semi-obscurity.

The balloon is “Spider-man” and the designer and co-creator of said icon is Steve Ditko. Sometime in 1963 – 44 years ago – Ditko and writer/editor Stan Lee created a new type of superhero who was everything Superman was not.

One of the biggest mysteries in comic book fandom for many years was, “Why did Steve Ditko leave Marvel?”

One story someone told me went like this: The books that sold best were the ones Jack Kirby drew, so Stan put out an edict saying that “everybody has to draw like Kirby.” So, Ditko quit.

Stan did say something like that, but most people interpret it to mean that Stan wanted the artists to make their stories more visually dynamic, not to ape Kirby’s actual drawing style. Reportedly, Stan had a lot of respect for Ditko’s drawing talents. I doubt if Ditko quit because of that edict.

Over the years, it occurred to me, “Why doesn’t somebody just ask Ditko why he left?” Turns out, many have; among them, writers Mark Evanier and Roy Thomas.

In Alter Ego #50, Roy Thomas wrote about the issue. He ran into Ditko at a party shortly after Ditko quit and asked him why. Thomas remembers part of Steve’s “vague” reply as, “When a guy’s working against you . . .” Which sheds no real light on the matter at all.

There was the New York Herald Tribune article (which fellow Ditko fan Fred Hembeck has a copy of, on his web site) in which Stan kind of put Ditko down. But I don’t know how much of a contributing factor that would have been. Steve was an objectivist by then – or fast on his way to becoming one – and wouldn’t have let personal feelings color his life’s work.

From what I have been able to gather from the Ditko newsgroup, it was a matter of money. Steve and Jack were promised some sort of profit sharing deal from the universe they were creating. Ditko became fed up and split. Rumors are that that’s one reason the troubled Wallace Wood also left a year or so before. It would also be one of the reasons that Kirby would leave later, along with other creative issues the King had with Stan.

One of the “almost-official” red herrings that’s been told over the decades is the myth that they argued over who would be unmasked as the Green Goblin. The legend goes that Ditko wanted the Goblin to be a non-entity, to show the banality and randomness of evil. Stan felt that that was a very unromantic dénouement to the saga.

I doubt the whole story. This bit of information I got from “Marvel Premier (?)” in the early nineties. In an article, Steve told Stan, after the Green Goblin had made his second or third appearance, “See that red haired guy that JJJ is talking to at his club? He’s the Green Goblin.” I checked my issues, and sure enough: going backwards, every Ditko drawn appearance of the GG (except, as I said the first 2) had a panel where Jameson is in his club, and one of his pals is a red-haired person who would become known as “Norman Osborne.”

Amazing Spider-man #23, Page 6, Panels 7 and 8.

Amazing Spider-man #26, Page 8, Panel 6.

Amazing Spider-man #27, Page 18, Panel 1.

Norman was formally introduced to readers in Amazing Spider-man # 37, the story entitled, “Once Upon a Time There Was a Robot”. On Page 11, Panel 1, JJJ tells him, “I was at our club when I heard the news!”

So, Stan and Steve knew all along! And, he was a “face in the crowd” until Spidey started college. I don’t think it was coincidence the newly-introduced red-haired Harry Osborne resembled the unnamed alter ego of the Green Goblin; remember, Ditko was both drawing and plotting. While Ditko might have certainly pushed the “nonentity unmasked” element, he was also an expert story teller who knew a good dramatic conclusion when he saw one.

But that leaves a few unanswered questions about some of the post-Master Planner Ditko issues.

Amazing Spider-man #36 starred the “Looter” – an obvious Randian reference. Not a bad little story, although I get the feeling that Ditko intended the Looter to be a much more malevolent person than just Stan’s “crackpot”. The fact that the Looter was a “scientist” and had a grey goatee may have been Ditko’s way of drawing a “liberal intellectual” of the sort found in Atlas Shrugged, although this is just a guess on my part. Visually, the Looter’s costume was just okay.

Amazing Spider-man #37 was where things got very interesting again. Of all the new villains introduced after the Master Planner saga, Prof. Strom, with his one-eyed goggle and bald head and robots, was the most memorable. Why they killed him off, while letting a non-entity like the Looter continue to live is beyond me. (This was in the days when – if Marvel killed a character – they stayed dead. No clones. Ever.)

Strom had a bad disposition, and he invented some deadly machines. He could have ended up a perennial favorite, like Doc Ock or the Kingpin. And his robots, especially the second one that looked like an amoeba, were graphically sinister and very original.

Strom was shot at by a mysterious someone from a high window where no one could get to – without the aid of, say, a Goblin Glider. Strom wasn’t hit, but fate (and the Comics Code) had him die of fright. But, why would the Goblin use a gun, a weapon he had never used before? And why not kill his other enemy – Spidey – at the same time?

Amazing Spider-man #38 was Ditko’s swan song. The cover is a montage of paste-ups from the inside story. It’s hard to believe that Ditko actually plotted the story. It’s all over the place. After vowing deadly revenge at the end of Spider-man # 27, Norman (as the Green Goblin) changes his mind and hires a bunch of thugs to go after Spidey? What an impersonal revenge!

Ditko could put a lot of twists and turns into his stories, but he was never inconsistent. And Norman Osborne is obsessing all through the issue about Spider-man. Why? Spidey has no inkling of how bad Osborne is and what he’s up to. Osborne knows this, but he keeps saying stuff like, “He’s becoming a menace to my plans! Yada yada yada.”

(The mysterious Mary Jane also makes her second cameo appearance here, on Page 19, Panel 9.)

And the “villain” of the story – “Joe” - has a graphically unexciting costume, and no special powers beyond being super-strong and very confused. Compare him with, say, the Squids whom Ditko had bedevil the Blue Beetle a few months later. Suction cups on their forearms to climb buildings? Very interesting.

But, not “Joe.” I’m convinced the whole issue was cut and re-pasted so that the story line would flow more logically into the next issue featuring the return and unmasking of the Green Goblin. How does the original story go? When I get some free time, I’m going to solve that Rubik’s Cube.

Which leads us to the unmasking.

I have a theory as to why the Green Goblin identity story is always bandied about. It’s only a theory; I have no evidence, either concrete or otherwise. You can accuse me of having a wild imagination.

My theory: Steve Ditko’s storyline started out similar to Spidey #39. The GG figures out who Spidey is, and unmasks him. (Maybe he’s also threatened Aunt May in some way.)

In issue #40 (if drawn and written by Ditko), Spidey turns the tables and KILLS Norman Osborne. I mean deliberately murders the man who could expose his secret to the world.

Norman isn’t suffering from mental illness from a lab accident.

Norman isn’t a good guy gone wrong (or a mellow “pussycat”); he’s an evil bastard.

Spidey isn’t vacillating about being judge and jury.

Spidey is pissed off; he’s an angry guy.

Comic fans know what Ditko's Randian "Mr. A" would have done with Norman Osborne.

If this scenario was presented to Stan, he would have thrown up his hands and exclaimed, “But Spidey’s a good guy! And we can’t kill off a villain as great as the Goblin! It’s like killing the goose that laid the golden egg! Besides, the Comics Code Authority will never go for it!”

I think both Stan and Steve agreed that Norman Osbourne would be the Green Goblin; they couldn’t agree as to what motivated him. Ditko the objectivist was certainly not going to stand still for the, “he’s mentally ill, and that’s what made him a criminal,” routine. If Osbourne had out-and-out murdered Professor Strom, instead of indirectly causing him to die, Stan would be never been able to later redeem Osbourne in Spider-man #40.

I also think that if Ditko had stayed with the script, Harry would have stayed just as obnoxious, and would never have become Pete’s best friend. Peter would have ended up having an affair with Gwen. Would they have married? Who knows? Remember, Mary Jane was waiting just off stage. Aunt May would have died in a natural way – or would have gotten hit by a car. (Roy Thomas also said in the same article that Ditko wanted to have one of the main characters get hit by a car and die. Stan, of course, said no.)

(That’s my theory, and I’m stuck with it. But then, I also believe that Peter lost his virginity to Mary Jane in Spider-man #43, page 14, between panels 2 and 3, in a story drawn by John Romita, Ditko’s successor.)

Steve Ditko has always been my favorite comic book illustrator, and - along with Vincent Van Gogh and M. C. Escher – one of the main artistic inspirations for my career. He’s also a terrific graphic designer. If I learned nothing else from his art, it was that hands could convey an abstract idea, or a world of meaning, with just the right gesture.

He turns 80 on November 2. He's still drawing. Happy Birthday, Mr. Ditko.

(All artwork and characters, © 2007, The Marvel Comics Group)