BLOG

Clean Up Time

We’re halfway through the week now, and it’s time to put the Halloween decorations away.

First, for your listening while undecorating pleasure, Mike Dawson interviews Julia Wertz for the TCJ Talkies podcast.

Also, for her regular webcomics column, Shaenon Garrity has invited T Campbell to write a guest entry on the perils of researching internet comics.

MetaFilter brings renewed attention to the double career of New Yorker cartoonist Syd Hoff, who moonlighted as a radical artist for The Daily Worker and New Masses. (via)

Matthias Wivel has an interesting theory about the villain from the new Tintin movie. (It’s more plausible than the one in Anonymous, anyway.)

As many have been noting, Ng Suat Tong has done yeoman’s work putting together scans and moments from throughout Jaime Hernandez’s Locas stories that are referenced or otherwise alluded to in Jaime’s most recent story, “The Love Bunglers”. A good reference once you’ve read the book (but don’t spoil it for yourself if you haven’t).

A publication called School Libraries in Canada got a very good interview out of Dave Collier, regarding everything from his military enlistment to reading on airplanes. (Regular readers of this site get one guess who sent this link my way.)

Frederik Pohl remembers the longtime DC editor Julius Schwartz. I think some longtime Journal readers might be somewhat surprised at the piece’s conclusion, but I guess Pohl’s old enough now to be entitled to his own opinion.

I can’t keep linking to every post on Eddie Campbell’s blog (just bookmark it already), but this latest entry, with video of Gerald Early (who is really an extraordinary essayist), can’t go without notice. Read and watch.

UPDATE: I forgot to link to this sad news: Steve Rude has been arrested after an apparent altercation with his neighbors.


One Response to Clean Up Time

  1. Daniel C. Parmenter says:

    > Frederik Pohl remembers the longtime DC editor Julius Schwartz. I think some longtime

    > Journal readers might be somewhat surprised at the piece’s conclusion, but I guess Pohl’s

    > old enough now to be entitled to his own opinion.

    I’m a longtime Journal reader (1980 or thereabouts) and I’m not entirely sure what you’re talking about here. Can you please be more specific?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>