10 Cent Museum 10 Cent Museum

Anything But Reality

Panel from June 11th, 1944 Krazy Kat Sunday strip by George Herriman

The last published Krazy Kat strip appeared on June 25th, 1944. When Herriman passed away on April 25th of that same year, he was working on an unfinished pair of daily strips. But Sunday strips are drawn in advance, so the June 25th strip is the final communication from (in my opinion) the world's greatest cartoonist.

The final three Sunday strips have a lot to say, about the strip itself and about living in general. I think a close read of them might illuminate something that seems to be obscure about Herriman. Krazy Kat holds much more than people grudgingly give it credit for. Its importance doesn't lie in the 'eternal love triangle' literary device of Krazy, Ignatz, and Pup (the only aspect of the strip major media outlets bother to write about---hey, it's an easy subject to fill a paragraph with before going on to explain how unpopular the comic was in its time). Nor is it proper to end discussion of the strip by saying it's 'beautifully designed!' which I hear a lot when people profess to not understanding the strips appeal but halfheartedly try their best to find something in it to connect with. Both of these common reads on Krazy Kat miss the forest for the trees.

One way to begin our approach is to consider that Krazy Kat might be the greatest comic strip of all time because it is unapologetically told exclusively within the language of cartooning. Herriman is not a Cliff Sterrett-esque stylist nor is he concerned with grafting literary devices onto the Sunday comics page. Krazy Kat is a solar system---it doesn't mirror or pay homage to anything else but its own thought---and its thought is expressed by one of the key architects of what we think of as cartooning. Krazy Kat was the crowning work of a newspaper strip veteran, whose first comics were published in 1901, at the dawn of the new medium. This column previously discussed Lionel Feininger, another architect of the form. But what distinguishes Herriman from Feininger (a painterly approach to cartooning) or Sterrett (modern art filtered through cartooning) or Winsor McKay (how visually astounding can this be?) or Bud Fisher (vaudeville humor as comics) is his adherence in Krazy Kat to nothing but the system of cartooning he and his peers developed. While Fisher's work reads like a two-man comedy act translated through reoccurring caricatured figures appearing in sequence, Herriman discards vaudeville. All that remains are the cartoon figures in sequence, drawn to the same scale day after day, and, importantly, the interactions of these characters. Sterrett mixed 'Cubism' with a cast of eccentric characters to great comedic and visual delight, thus providing not only a domestic reference to agreed upon reality, but some recognition of artistic trends or concerns happening outside of the world of his characters. Not so with Herriman. Instead of filling his strip with nods to the world as it is or falling back on the 'seriousness' of other forms, Herriman instead infused the systems of cartooning (which he helped to invent) with himself, his own thoughts and feelings. Yes... the real world is present in the strip, but as seen in Herriman's mind rather than by the standards of the day.

Herriman, make no mistake, is not freely improvising his thoughts, Beat poetry style, onto the page. There is great precision and elegance employed in placing his life project into the system of comics. Furthermore, this is not an artist who is writing literary monologues and adapting them to the form of cartooning. Instead, the simplified cartoon characters, through their interaction, elicit feelings. The 'triangle' is there, but it goes far beyond device. I do not think what's at play here are 'human relationships being explored' but rather emotions and thoughts brought out from the reader that are created through the cast's actions and reactions. Like all important art, Krazy Kat makes into reality charged emotions or concepts that didn't exist before the strip was read, but impact us (whether they 'make sense' or not) after they are digested. Poetry? Sure. But of a unique kind, so that it seems unfair to paint the strip as simply that and call it a day. Instead, let's explore the strip's final days to see a prime sequence of the notions it creates.

Krazy Kat strip by George Herriman, June 11th 1944

Jeet Heer, in his introduction to the Fantagraphics collection of the final Krazy Kat strips, Krazy & Ignatz - He Nods in Quiescent Siesta: 1943-44, says that "the last two strips are surprisingly melancholy." Putting aside the more general wrongheadedness of saying that melancholy was a surprising feature in Krazy Kat (a strip that contained all emotions, regularly---and, as we will see, the events in these final strips are far more charged than the 'melancholy' alone suggests), Heer is wrong to focus our attention simply on the final two Sunday strips. The sequence that leads to the strips crescendo begins with the third to last Sunday strip, published on June 11th 1944.

The strip leads off with Krazy planting corn, as Offisa Pup observes. Throughout 1944, there had been constant references to vegetation, trees and crops growing. In fact, the final time Ignatz strikes Krazy with a brick on May 7th, 1944, it's from a clever trick where Ignatz instructs Krazy to place a brick on top of a quickly growing tree---it sprouts up and the brick topples off, onto Krazy's head.

Sequence from May 7th 1944 Krazy Kat strip by George Herriman

The next week, the final time Krazy seems to respond or hear something Ignatz says, Krazy's notion that another quickly growing tree is an oak tree is confused by Ignatz remark to Mrs. Kwakk Wakk about olive seeds turning into olive trees.

Sequence from May 14th 1944 Krazy Kat strip by George Herriman

Instead of a tree cropping up quickly, as had become more of a feature in the strips later days than bricks hitting Ignatz head, on June 11th Pup and Krazy prop up a scarecrow. A familiar (albeit new) feature of the strips logic is being subverted.

Panel from June 11th, 1944 Krazy Kat Sunday strip by George Herriman

Upon seeing the scarecrow, Ignatz remarks that 'it doesn't get any scare out of me,' though his face suggests otherwise. The crow remarks that it's not meant to scare a mouse, it's meant to scare crows. Strangely, Ignatz accepts this and leaves, while the crow stays. The scarecrow designed to scare crows and not mice repels the mouse while the crow remains. Given the emotional make up of the strip, I feel like something else is going on here: Ignatz face reacts to the scarecrow nakedly, then reverts back to being collected, as if the true meaning of the scarecrow is grasped instantly, but can't be uttered. Ignatz' actions, however, speak volumes. He's not scared and yet he puts down his brick and leaves. The next panel is totally silent and empty. All that remains of the scarecrow is a stick.

Panel from June 11th, 1944 Krazy Kat Sunday strip by George Herriman

The scarecrow's absence suggests that its purpose was accomplished. Ignatz has been prevented from going further. What's more, Ignatz's brick sits next to it, unused. Never again will we see Ignatz with his brick in the strip. The silence of the panel draws our attention to an important event transpiring here. I can't think of any other Krazy Kat panel that is not only silent but devoid of any of the strip's characters. One of the main narrative drives of the strip has ended forever. Was Offisa Pup finally successful in driving off Ignatz for good with his suggestion of a scarecrow? Or is there something in the scarecrow's meaning that is a communication from Krazy directly to Ignatz, signaling to the mouse that their 34-year interaction is now deeply changed? I don't know how to come down on either side of things here, but it's worth looking at the last two times Krazy and Ignatz have communication of any kind in the light of these questions. While the May 14th strip is the last time that Krazy is seen to consciously hear Ignatz, their actions affect each others two times more before the final break on June 11th.

Sequence from May 21st 1944 Krazy Kat strip by George Herriman

On May 21st, we have a particularly stark statement from Herriman on race. (Herriman's life as a black man who passed for white has been explored in meticulous detail in Michael Tisserand's densely researched book Krazy: George Herriman, a Life in Black and White. This column can't begin to address the subject in even a fraction of the detail Tisserand has, so please consult that book for far more on this subject). References to race appear throughout Krazy Kat, but rarely more explicitly than they do here. We see Krazy observe a brown weasel, who is, as Offisa Pup explains, a poor insurance risk because of his color. Krazy remarks that this is odd to him. The rest of the strip shows Ignatz stepping in and facilitating the weasel's transformation to white. Krazy observes the transformation. Ignatz remarks to the weasel that his new higher value owing to his color is 'the way of the insurance co. Queer but still their way.'

I'm against simple interpetations, but Ignatz's involvement in these actions that are of great importance to Herriman must be at least considered. Ignatz's readiness to respond to changing someone's color and his understanding of the issue in the face of Krazy's bafflement mean something. Whether it's anger or confusion over the issue that leads to Krazy (perhaps by accident) repelling Ignatz three weeks later is unclear to me, but, again, must be considered.

Sequence from June 4th 1944 Krazy Kat strip by George Herriman

Two weeks after the weasel incident, we have a particularly jarring strip. Offisa Pup uses a stick as a diving rod to unearth a brick, which in his mind Ignatz will no doubt use against Krazy. It appears to me the same stick that props up the important scarecrow. The final panel of the strip suggests that Ignatz was also... buried underground? As Pup (holding the stick and the brick) and Ignatz walk away, Ignatz's head emerges, in apparent anguish.

Sequence from June 4th 1944 Krazy Kat strip by George Herriman

The strip that follows is June 11th, with the stick now re-purposed to prop up the scarecrow. So, the final interactions of Krazy Kat and Ignatz map out like this: Ignatz tricks Krazy into getting hit by a brick toppling from a growing tree, Ignatz passingly confuses Krazy about oak trees vs. olive trees, Ignatz works to transform a weasel's color in an issue whose subtleties are (seemingly) obscure to Krazy and finally Ignatz' brick is discovered with a stick from Offisa Pup while Ignatz writhes in agony, his body beneath ground. After these events, the scarecrow emerges and Ignatz discards his brick. For a brief moment the strip is silent and empty.

This brings us to the final two strips.

Krazy Kat strip by George Herriman, June 18th, 1944

The June 18th strip begins with Offisa Pup and Ignatz in rare agreement. Krazy Kat is submerged in water. 'I know it,' says Ignatz. Both Pup and Ignatz dive in to save Krazy... except, Krazy is not under water after all. He's standing next to the lake. Ignatz says that they were 'saving' Krazy, and yet the strip seems to suggest that it's a prank by Ignatz. In the last panel, we see Offisa Pup still in the water---did Ignatz trick Pup into worrying about Krazy only to have him dive in and look hopelessly for a Kat who was never there? Ignatz knew to climb out of the lake immediately, while Pup seems to have stayed there for a while before figuring it out. So... a prank, for now.

Krazy Kat strip by George Herriman, June 25th, 1944. Final Krazy Kat ever published.

And yet in the final Krazy Kat strip from June 25th, it seems that things are more serious. Pup notices bubbles coming from the lake and at first dismisses them for another prank. In the next panel he either sees Ignatz, which makes him reconsider somehow, or he has a realization of his own. Either way, he's now convinced that Krazy is truly in the water this time. And he's right. When he returns to the lake, Krazy's head emerges from the water, eyes wide open, only to sink in again. Pup jumps in, and emerges with a very still Krazy, whose eyes are now closed.

Panel from June 25th 1944 Krazy Kat strip by George Herriman

Jeet Heer, again from his introduction to Krazy and Ignatz 1943-44, interprets the final strip as follows: "[Pup] realizes his mistake and rescues the cat, who is rendered completley and uncharacteristically silent by the trauma. Given all the wonderful words Krazy uttered during his (or her) life, the muteness of the last panel is eerie and evocative. The show is over and there is nothing left to be said."

With the context of what was going on in the world of the strip in its final months, I can't be as sure as Heer that Pup successfully rescued Krazy. Ignatz's expression and silence seem to point to a different conclusion. Pup himself is looking directly at the reader. He shares, I think, our pain. The show is over, yes, in the most clear way. With the silent June 11th panel as the catalyst, I feel that the trio has lost it's beloved leader.

And yet this is cartooning, so it's not that simple. Krazy and Ignatz were born from the bottom strip of The Dingbat Family pages. So, Herriman lets Krazy live on in the bottom strip of the June 25th strip. Look, here's Krazy! Back in the water! And holding... a stick.

Panel from June 25th, 1944 Krazy Kat strip by George Herriman

All of these events hit me, as a reader, very hard. Yes, they are sad, like an actual death, but the feeling is not exactly tragic. The strips are emotionally hard to read, but why exactly? As discussed before, these are new feelings, that could only be discovered within this particular structure.  Herriman's commitment to the beauty and potential of the medium he helped create becomes a limitless template for him to get at realities beyond reality. The strip's final days are first and foremost something to read and react to. Beyond that, we can point to them as an example of cartooning at its zenith, capable of true creation.

Why then does so much 'serious' cartooning take a different path? Of course literary melodrama, biography, journalism, action, etc all deserve to be explored in comics, and are often incredible works of art. Love and Rockets is a beautiful soap opera saga that I hold dearly. But where are the examples of pure comics that bring us such devastating events as the conclusion of Krazy Kat?

Panel from 'The Shrinking Superman' by Otto Binder (script) and Wayne Boring (art), Action Comics #245, 1958

While I wouldn't put them on exactly equal footing, I do think the Superman titles in the late '50s and early '60s, under the editorship of Mort Weisinger, are examples of pure cartooning that deserve a mention when discussing this concept.

Weisinger's Superman group of titles was one of the most commercially successful lines of comics ever published. Children at the time read them in extremely high numbers, a level of sustained readership that will probably never be equalled for comics with caped characters.

The tone of the line defined itself in 1958, partly by a constraint that the comics world imposed on itself. Physical violence, while not banned by the comics code, was to be avoided. So Weisinger took a line of superhero comics and instead of emphasizing brawn, made them into intricate puzzles. Now, these are not puzzles that use the unreliable world as one of its factors in the way a Raymond Chandler novel might. Instead, every story has no relation to anything real (except basic outlines of things like 'I have a job at a newspaper' or 'humans need to eat food to survive' or 'ice is cold')---the comic book world of Superman itself is the only thing the stories use to set up their questions and render solutions. These are mysteries whose only logic is cartooning, and I'd argue that they are more beautiful as science fiction than anything EC ever published. EC's sci-fi line, edited by Al Feldstein and William Gaines, is endlessly lauded by comics people as an artistic passion project that was genuinely creative. In truth, the line was full of fine cliched stories with highly competent illustration. On their own terms, I adore them. Much good comics history is to be found in them, and a great deal of pleasure as well. But they weakly moralize, while Weisinger's Superman titles, which are generally looked at as kitschy trash, feel more like works of true imaginative genius. Like Krazy Kat, they achieve this through excluding the world outside of cartooning.

In 1958's 'The Shrinking Superman', written by Otto Binder with art by Wayne Boring, Superman brings Lois Lane to his Fortress of Solitude. It is filled with trophies and artifacts that exist within the context of Superman itself : trophies to Lois Lane, a bowling alley with a hundred pins instead of ten. No attempt is made to depict the elegant fortress of a powerful being, but instead everything is designed to emphasize the specific traits of this cartoon character. Lois Lane is his friend, so he has trophies of her. He's not ordinary so he has to bowl differently.

Panel from 'The Shrinking Superman' by Otto Binder (script) and Wayne Boring (art), Action Comics #245, 1958

While in the fortress, Lois notices the city of Krypton, which has been shrunk to miniature size. It's simply another object from the series's history. Lois breaks the city open and a tiny villain emerges. He tricks Lois into thinking that he's Superman, as she reduces the real Superman to miniature size. This sets up a situation where Lois delivers the following information packed dialogue:

Panel from 'The Shrinking Superman' by Otto Binder (script) and Wayne Boring (art), Action Comics #245, 1958

With work like this, there's an a degree of effort needed from the reader that's similar in difficulty to Krazy Kat. With Herriman, one must commit to the strip and put aside understanding things in an 'logical storytelling' way. With Weisinger's Superman books, we must make the effort to not read them as camp if we are going to enjoy them. These were stories made for children, but with a wild creative core. Superman as Killer/Zak-Kul/Reduced Superman/"Gunner" Gates/Am I Responsible?/Trapped In Bottle!/Only I and Zak-Kul Know! There are more ideas here in one panel than in a year's worth of contemporary mainstream comics, perhaps in a decade's worth. And, when these ideas are mixed together, the reactions they stimulate in the reader, while perhaps not as harrowing as those of Krazy Kat, are similarly unique. For a young reader, there is much to chew on here. The project Weisinger and his staff took on was not 'how to comment on the world' but rather the possibility of expressing something exciting within a system with multiple constraints placed upon it. Through those constraints, something that no other work of art could emulate happens.

Part of the success of these stories come from the deep care put into them. In the same way that Herriman was purposeful in arranging his universe, the vast amount of ideas brought into play in each Superman story is not executed messily but instead with deep precision. In this particular story, Otto Binder's script is crisp and precise, and Wayne Boring's art explains the action to the reader as clearly as possible. There is personality in both, but it's an undertone... a meaty, undeniable undertone, but not a focus. No frills. Boring's drawings communicate the meaning for that particular panel, nothing more. They pulsate but are modest, while Binder's scripts have a punch the clock vibe, imagination filtered through characters the writer was assigned to work on.

Binder's Captain Marvel comics for Fawcett were similarly packed with ideas, but they contained a lot of human warmth, a large dose of kindness. Under Weisinger, the human aspect is gone. Binder's Superman cast is closer to cruel than kind, but really neither. What we have on the page here is cartooning to the exclusion of all else.

The post-1986 idea of genre comics is deeply divorced from this, and I think that's why contemporary mainstream comics seem so adrift. Introducing 'the real world' into a system so charged up with its own distance from it is a nice one-time gimmick, to be sure. But as we pass three decades of the trick, the steady foundation it was based on feels unfortunately obscure. It's fitting that Watchmen #1 was published on the same date as Superman #423, which began Alan Moore's 'Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?' story. Moore (whose intentions where good, I think, and has moved beyond the 'gimmick' into ever-changing and very rich artistic territory) had the best Weisinger artist, Curt Swan, draw a story that aesthetically negates (in the form of homage) the imagination of the Weisinger years. 'Whatever Happened...?' is praised as an effective way to close the continuity of the Silver Age-era Superman to make way for the forthcoming revamp of the character, mixing the strangeness of the past with the awareness of the present. But that idea alone shows comic book artists and readers misunderstanding what was so effective about Binder, Boring, Swan, et al. For a world that is pure imagination, there is no need to end it effectively to make way for a corporate revamp. Those concepts are in opposition not only to imagination but to the potential of cartooning itself. Any medium can rationalize itself, but cartooning lacks any reasons to do so.

A drawing with pictures does not need corporate logic to express itself. Nor do artistic comics need to signal their seriousness by professing awareness of important this. Cartooning is rich and suffers when diluted.

FILED UNDER: , , , , , , , , , ,

21 Responses to Anything But Reality

  1. Interesting article. And, yes, the incessant harping on the “triangle” is tiresome.

    I didn’t interpret the scarecrow page that way at all when I read it. The crow clearly says that the scarecrow is for crows, and therefore Ignatz should clear out, which he does. “That thing is to scare us crows”, so it’s the crow’s property. It’s funny and nonsensical, right?

    The final panel of the strip shows a new “scarecrow”, but this one looks like Offisa Pup, and apparently scares Ignatz as it’s supposed to.

    As for the divining rod page: I read that as Pup finding the brick buried next to Ignatz (look at the dust clouds between Ignatz and Pup possibly signifying that Pup has moved from Ignatz’ position to Krazy Kat), so I took that to mean that Ignatz had buried the brick and himself to stage a surprise attack on Krazy Kat. The usual shifting landscape confuses that interpretation, though.

    And the divining rod looks nothing like the scarecrow plank: It’s narrow and bent, while the plank is… well… a plank. But the empty panel in the scarecrow page (that features only the plank) is a head scratcher.

  2. Lars: the bottom panel in the scarecrow strip DOES show Pup, but the bottom section of the strip is often a different take from the actual goings-on of that weeks action (or, maybe more accurately, a slapstick reading of a more simple possibility than what the ‘real’ strip contained). Herriman does the same thing in the final strip with Krazy floating in the water again…’Haha, he’s ok!’ Comic book magic, having your cake and eating it too. So I think Pup in the bottom of the Scarecrow strip actually suggets that what’s happening in the rest of the strip is not so simple.

  3. Jones, one of the Jones boys says:

    Bravo for championing Weisinger Superman. Those comics have been waaay underappreciated by “serious”-type critics* thanks to their broader context — surrounded by decades of mediocrity, the cultural ubiquity of Superman as corporate franchise, the lack of an obvious and idiosyncratic auteur, their later online appropriation as provider of camp imagery… If, somehow, the superhero genre had become obscure and a commercial dead-end, those stories would today be heralded as visionary. I’ll take them over EC ‘s aspirations to lower-middlebrow respectability/competent pulp any old day.

    * cf. their last-place position on the Hooded Utilitarian’s poll, their non-position on the Journal’s top 100

  4. Jones: Yeah, to me, Binder is the best superhero comics writer ever, there’s no one who comes close. Those classic Lee Marvel stories read horribly in comparison. The idea of them as camp fades away when you realize they were written for children…with that in mind, they’re easily on the level of Carl Barks. I love EC but the more ‘serious’ the stories pretended to me, the worse they were. The sci-fi is praised so much but it’s just imitative, while Binder/Weisinger REALLY did something way out there.

    Also, people seem to go out of their way to ignore Clowes interest in this work. He mentions it as an influence constantly, even creating a graphic novel where the main character is the son if Wayne Boring, and yet I still never see it discussed. It totally makes sense as an influence for a super craft focused artist like Clowes, because the Weisinger comics are air-tight.

    I wouldn’t say they are on the level of Herriman, but I did enjoy placing them in such rareified company, because they deserve it.

  5. Alex Hoffman says:

    Really enjoyed this one.

  6. Jones, one of the Jones boys says:

    Hmm, on the level of Carl Barks? Barks — like John Stanley — has a lot more going on at an adult level than those Superman stories, wouldn’t you agree? They’ve got a lot of psychological insight and character-based comedy that’s genuinely funny to adults, which is not what you find in Superman.

    …Maybe what I want to say is that, to appreciate the Swan/Boring/Binder et al. Superman, you need to (consciously or unconsciously) apply different criteria from what you standardly would with art for adults; whereas Barks and Stanley are fully appreciable with those adult criteria in place (which is what makes them “all ages”, I guess). Not that that makes them better or worse, mind, just that they’re to some extent working at different levels altogether

  7. Bob Levin says:

    BRILLIANT! (But why don’t I get any pictures? Just white spaces where the art should be.) Sort of spoils the analysis. Do I need to click somewhere?)

  8. Jones: barks and stanley are great, no question. But they do steer closer to what we are both critiquing about EC. ‘This is quality literature…as a comic!’ Barks and Stanley are in a different world than Feldstein (i like his drawing a ton tho, solid outsider art) but still lacks what Weisinger/Binder provide: unique/highly creative. They are also referencing ‘reality’ as filtered through conventional storytelling, which this essay critiques in favor of abadoning all that for pure cartooning, But i wouldnt be able to defend that judgement for too long, because in so many ways Barks/Stanley are better. But I’d still rather read a random Binder comic than a random Tubby…odds are higher that I’ll be suprised by Binder.

    Bob: oh no! Refresh page? If that doesnt work I can email ya all the images! But it SHOULD work.

  9. Jeet Heer says:

    “Binder is the best superhero comics writer ever, there’s no one who comes close. Those classic Lee Marvel stories read horribly in comparison. The idea of them as camp fades away when you realize they were written for children…with that in mind, they’re easily on the level of Carl Barks.”
    I agree with a smidgen of with this in that the Lee Marvel stories really were horrible, especially before 1965 (when Kirby took much greater command of plotting and also had a lighter work load so could devote more time to each story). In general, I’d say any Marvel comic from 1961-1965 is worse written than its DC counterpart. And pre-Marvel Atlas and Timely comics are far worse Silver Age DC. But having said that, Mort Weisinger era Superman comics lack anything like the wit and humanity of Carl Barks or John Stanley. Like the Marvel comics of the era, you always have to read the Weisinger stuff in partly a campy spirit or with part of your brain shut off. That’s not true of Barks or Stanley (or for that matter, like the best comics of Jack Cole, Will Eisner, Harvey Kurtzman, and Simon & Kirby, or Kirby in his auteur mode.

  10. Heer: Why would you ‘have to’ read something made for children as camp? I’m not sure I understand the logic behind that.

    No wit/empathy? I think they’re ALL wit—they lack ’empathy’ because they’re intricate puzzles.

    I think to view the stories as camp is to miss something deeper pulsating within them (relentless logic based on rules established only within the universe of the non-reality of the strip itself, which, to me, is thrilling. For children who read these, like Clowes, I imagine an ever deeper reaction). Treating them as camp feels like sacrificing a deeper engagement with what Binder was up to.

    I think we see different things, in the same way I discuss how my reading differs from yours on the final days of Krazy Kat in the article itself, which is what I’d be more interested in discussing with you anyway, since I respond to a few of your quotes :)

  11. Jones, one of the Jones boys says:

    “Wit” isn’t really the right word for the Superman stories, though. Wit is Wodehouse, Wilde, Perelman — or, indeed, Barks and Stanley. The Superman stories have imaginative vision, which is also clever, but not the same. Barks and Stanley each show that you can have wit and deep understanding of social manners in children’s comics, thr Superman stories show that you can also have other virtues instead

  12. Jones: I read a Barks comic yesterday. Here was the plot. Donald buys a pool. He wants to swim in it but everyone in the neighborhood swims in it instead. At one point, he puts ice cubes in it to scare people off. Then he can finally get to tale a dip himself! But…ooops! It’s too cold.

    I loved reading it, it was funny and well drawn…but why do people insist on giving it qualitites close to Wilde? That just asks you to love it in a way that is impossible given what it actually is. It’s the same with EC sci fi, this desire for well told stories to be ‘as good’ as classic literature. They’re not as good…they’re their own thing. Barks is writing earnest stories with modest literary ambition and he’s drawing it all out in his own hand. Worthy of high praise, I really believe that! But the storytelling comes first, with the ideas in the stories a distant second. Binder’s storytelling/ideas are a more powerful synthesis, in my view.

    It’s like when people talk about Little Orphan Annie and say ‘Dickens had orphans in his work. And…Little Orphan Annie is…an orphan. So, uh, the strip was…Dickensian!!’ That’s not why LOA is good.

  13. RSM says:

    Jeet Heer sez: “the Lee Marvel stories really were horrible, especially before 1965 … [i]n general, I’d say any Marvel comic from 1961-1965 is worse written than its DC counterpart.”

    Jeet, does that judgment include the Ditko Spider-Man and Dr. Strange runs? Because there’s a pretty good case to be made that the Ditko-Lee Spider-Man is strongest of the period’s adventure features. Dr. Strange isn’t as good, mainly because the cast of characters isn’t as lively, but it holds up quite well in terms of plotting and pace. For what it’s worth, I’d rate both well above everything else published by Marvel or DC at that time. I agree the Kirby material doesn’t come into its own until 1965-1966. With Fantastic Four, I think the shift coincides with Joe Sinnott coming on board as inker, and with the outer-space stories with Thor.

  14. Jeet Heer says:

    I don’t think Dr. Strange was a particularly well-written book. It’s Ditko’s trippy art that makes it work. Spider-Man was quite well written, especially after the first 10 issues or so (those early issues are a slog). As with Kirby’s work, I think Ditko taking increased control over plotting helped a lot.

  15. Jones, one of the Jones boys says:

    Fair enough, Wilde is not a great comparison — nothing in Barks approaches the verbal wit of Wilde’s epigrams, but I was thinking more along the lines of Barks’ (and Stanley’s) frequently cynical and deflationary insight into the baseness of human motivation and ambition…but it’s been so very long since I read any Wilde that I’m probably mostly projecting even that into him (Now that I’ve written it out, it sounds more like late-period Twain than Wilde, anyway). And that’s not all there is to enjoy in Barks, either, I agree. He drew more than one kind of strip; some are farce, some adventurous exotica, some are social satires of contemporary suburban life…

    But ah I don’t think we really disagree that much — I’m making the literary comparisons not in the hope that their patina of respectability might rub off on comics, but to try to describe some of the particular aesthetic virtues that some particular comics have and others lack (without making any judgement about which of those virtues are themselves more or less valuable). Barks and Stanley have a morbid and cynical wit about human behaviour and morality (Gladstone Gander 4EVA!) that you don’t find in the Superman stories, that’s all I’d want to say, I guess.

    …I actually think Dickens is a good reference point for Annie, but for a couple of different reasons. First, as a paradigm of how to do popular serialised narrative (which is of course not uniquely relevant to Annie, but applies to all the continuity strips). Second, their shared fondness for mawkish sentimentality. Third, and most importantly, the (for the most part) simple-minded and hyperbolic schematism of their moral characterisation — Joe Gargery in Great Expectations can’t just be a nice guy, he has to be a moral saint; likewise for Annie and her temporary allies in her periodic sojourns away from the security of “Daddy” Warbucks (to be fair, “Daddy” and his pals are arguably more morally ambiguous). Again, this almost allegorical simplicity is not unique to either Annie among strips or Dickens among 19c literature, but finds some of its richest expressions in them both.

    I say all this as a big big fan of Harold Gray! (and somewhat lesser fan of Dickens too)

  16. I think the main lesson to be learnt here is that if you want to discuss Krazy Kat, you shouldn’t mention any super-hero comics in the final paragraph. :-)

    Anyway, I wonder whether the gag in that silent panel was supposed to be that the crow had stolen the scarecrow coat (and head)?

    I thought when I read that page some years back was that the crow had built the scare-Ignatz in the “after strip” with those items, but that makes even less sense (because the head and uniform looks nothing like the scarecrow).

  17. Jones: totally get where you’re comin from. My frustration only comes from the fact that this particular column’s focus on considering things that ‘turn away’ from reality as more effective as comics than things like Barks/Stanley who are invested in it (but in my mind in a middle of the road way). But your points are totally valid and I love discussing them with you!

    Lars: ha yes NEVER mentioning superheroes again if the focus is something else, because they just take over.

    Hmmm…but why didn’t the scarecrow also take the brick?

  18. Scott says:

    No! I loved the juxtaposition of Herriman and Weisenger/Boring/et al.

  19. Hugo Montoya says:

    I wonder if John Stanley’s version of Nancy doesn’t do the internal-logic-of-this-cartoon-universe thing that you’re seeing in Otto Binder’s scripts. Seems to me that it comes closer than Lulu, even if it may not be exactly the thing you’re pointing toward.

  20. Nick Fowler says:

    I really enjoyed this article, thank you. Having just yesterday taken my first pilgrimage to The Overlook on 44th, between your thoughtful analysis of the final Krazy strips and the closing sentences of the article, I was actually brought to tears.
    The superhero posturing in the comments was a plus.

  21. Good article! I’m really interest in your idea of pure cartooning, yet I don’t think I grasp it fully. I understand if I’m the context of Krazy Kat and Superman, but I don’t understand why other strips contemporary to Krazy Kat don’t fit this definition, or why other silver age comics don’t count as pure cartooning. If pure cartooning means cartooning with only the language and logic of the cartoon/comic book medium then surely early Lee/Kirby marvel would fall into this definition. Also you say that these comics are free from real world context, and yet Krazy Kat is directly referencing contemporary race politics. I guess I’m just asking for a bit more clarification/qualification for this idea of cartooning as our cartooning. Keep up the good work!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *