A common thread among artists is that they are unconcerned with anything except creating Art (and, often, especially when it might interfere with cashing a check).

So Ditko could probably have ignored the business environment he was working in, because he was focused on his artistic environment.

I haven't been saying anything lately because I, well, haven't really had anything to say.

My guess at answering your question: A steady paycheck and minimal editorial interference (at least when he returned to Charlton, post-Marvel, given his problems with Stan Lee). I'd bet the former more than the latter. But it's only a guess.

Perhaps he thought he could affect a philosophical change from within?

Or perhaps, like all Randians in the end, he was a giant flaming hypocrite?

I like Steve Ditko a lot (not as much as I like John Romita, but that's a whole 'nother thread), but I'm sad to say that so far, Greg's explanation in post #4 is the only one that resonates. I don't think a true-blue Objectivist could look the other way from evil because of artistic freedom, or for a paycheck, and the idea of going into the belly of the beast to change it from within doesn't seem very Randian either.

Or perhaps, like all Randians in the end, he was a giant flaming hypocrite?

You mean, A isn't always necessarily A?

To play the motivation game...

Ditko probably told himself that by working for Charlton and thereby spreading his Tales of Uncompromising Randian Righteousness to the young'uns of America he was doing a greater good than he would have by self-righteously refusing to work for evil masters. His tales had to be told, and if it meant working with scum, then so be it! It wouldn't be the first time! And at least Charlton let him do it his way! The Right Way! The Only Way!

Why, the criminals were his pawns! He was using them to advance Truth and Reason and Righteousness; that they made money off of his efforts, well, that's just what parasites do, isn't it? Disgusting, but a reality of life.

In other words, he did what most people do: he did what he wanted, then built a framework of rationalization over it that would allow him to pretend he'd weighed his ethical choices first, then decided rationally based upon his philosophy. Most personal ethoses (sic) serve as blueprints for post-facto rationalization. ("I slept with my friend's wife...because I love Jesus! Uh...my actions will split apart their...um...unsanctified union and...um...lead them closer to God!")

My impression from Rand's fiction (The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged) was that the big idea for creative types was to create on their own terms, without compromises. Policing their employers' morals wasn't a priority, as long as they weren't themselves being forced to work or to modify their vision in the service of lesser mortals. (What people who weren't creative geniuses were supposed to do, other than feel properly grateful and hope that they were never left by their patron to die in the desert, wasn't clear to me, but presumably Ditko didn't see himself in that role.)

It's been a while, and I'm no expert (I read AS once, and I have to admit I only saw the movie of TF). But I don't recall anything that would stop one of her heroes from taking a commission from a mobster, as long as the mobster didn't tell them what to build/invent/whatever and didn't compromise the result. IIRC, Howard Roark worked for people he didn't respect more than once-- he just tended to withdraw his work when they added tailfins to the design or whatever. Again IIRC, the various industrialists of AS didn't refuse to deal with the bad guys, they left when the bad guys started telling them how to run their railroad or taking their magic metal.

(I'd guess that working in non-self-published comics would make the "no artistic compromises" bit harder, though my impression is that Ditko held closer to that line than most.)

Perhaps sensing that the February Curmudgeons Con was featuring a panel on this very question, the mysterious Mr. Door Tree, proprietor of the blog Golden Age Comic Book Stories (which I found via Dirk Deppey), ran the first Mr. A story on Saturday. He then followed with the second story (in three parts) on Sunday. Here's what I learned from them:

FOOLS WILL TELL YOU THAT THERE CAN BE NO HONEST PERSON! THAT THERE ARE NO BLACKS OR WHITES ..... THAT EVERYONE IS GRAY! BUT IF THERE ARE NO BLACKS OR WHITES, THERE CANNOT EVEN BE A GRAY ... SINCE GRAYNESS IS JUST A MIXTURE OF BLACK AND WHITE! SO WHEN ONE KNOWS WHAT IS BLACK, EVIL, AND WHAT IS WHITE, GOOD, THERE CAN BE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR CHOOSING ANY PART OF EVIL! THOSE WHO DO SO CHOOSE, ARE NOT GRAY BUT BLACK AND EVIL ... AND THEY WILL BE TREATED ACCORDINGLY!

Hrm. That seems pretty straightforward, but let's see what happens when Mr. A addresses a racketeer named Baggot in the second story.

I WANT TO SEE YOU FINISHED FOR GOOD! YOU'RE A POISONOUS DISEASE, BAGGOT, TO ACCEPT ANY PART OF YOU IS TO ACCEPT CONDEMNATION THAT LEADS TO THE DESTRUCTION OF ALL DECENT VALUES.

There you have it. Despite whatever evidence there may be to the contrary, there's no way Charlton could've been connected to the mob. Ditko would never have worked for them if they were.

...its also believable that as a freelancer he probably was involved with the editorial staff, dropped off his pages, and cashed his checks from what otherwise seemed like a legitimate operation...that's why its considered a front.

I doubt he was stepping over bodies and picking up brown bags
full of cash.

That he wasn't clued into how the particular publishing operation he was working for was run would make him pretty much like every other comic artist of the day. True?

I don't think it's that well known that Charlton was "completely mobbed-up", as you say. And I'm much less sure that it was widely known back then. (I'm trying to remember what I've heard about Charlton-mob ties, in fact. I know your statement didn't strike me as out of nowhere, but it doesn't seem quite right, either. I wish my back issues of Comic Book Artist & Comic Book Marketplace weren't in storage, I'm sure what I heard is somewhere in there...)

Good question.

I'm inclined to agree with Michael S. Schiffer. Also, there is a vast difference between working with a company with ties to the mob, and working on behalf of the mob. If Charlton was a mob front company, I don't think it was engaged in any illegal activities itself (well, other than money laundering), and the mob often divests from its fronts and moves on. Ditko might not have liked the association, but provided they did not try to alter his views, he might not have seen the association as morally compromising him. Who knows, maybe he thought it as an ironic jest that the mob was funding his "attack" on "their evil." There are many ways to spin such a thing.

Given his extreme views, one is less likely to give Ditko the same leeway a more compromising man has. However, I think calling Ditko a giant flaming hypocrite is harsh. It's one thing when hypocrisy means someone adovcating a false position he obviously does not believe in, and another thing when "hypocrisy" means someone held such high standards that ultimately one fails to consistently adhere to them because he is, after all, human.

Isn't it a better thing to have a moral standard that pushes you? Still, if Ditko himself judged others more harshly for similar violations than he did himself, that is an issue.