I do crossword puzzles while I watch television--which I suddenly realize is EXACTLY like my father, wow--and I just stop bothering to look at the screen during the Owen scenes. I did about an extra half a puzzle for this episode.
The book I was reading was Rejected Lovers by William Stieg, copyright 1951. I was looking for books for a paper and ran across this in the library's tiny little graphic arts books, which had a few nice collections I'll forget to look at later. It's not pornography, but there are a smattering of nude women, including some full-frontal nudity, and in general, it's clear that Stieg's subject is mature adult activity, not chaste romance. (Be forewarned: it's entirely about male lovers who've been rejected by their female lovers. Stieg thinks injured male pride is hilarious, and there's not a touch of misogyny in it, but it's very much a book about how men react to women, and in no wise could it be considered a feminist perspective.)
I really love cartoons from the '50s onwards. Maybe it's just the places they were published--magazines, as illustrations in books, or even in artist's collections like this--but they always seem to have a more sophisticated sense of humor than their cousins on the comics page and in comic books. The New Yorker cartoons and Charles Addams are perfect examples of this kind of thing, although Addams, kind of like Gorey, has the added appeal of possessing an extremely twisted sense of humor.
The other day, I was reading a pretty interesting discussion about attempts to structure conceptual definitions of sequential/narrative/comics art etc, and one of the participants was lamenting the way that comics have been lumped in cartoons, which he thinks is just awful because, he implies, cartoons are inherently so shallow and puerile.
While I agree there's great use in distinguishing sequential art from static single images, this is totally a wtf take on it for me, because while sequential art does not have to be cartoonish in nature, it often is for many good reasons having nothing to do with the creator's ability to render, and for that reason, examinations of sequential art should acknowledge and explore the kinship with cartooning every now and then, and also because it's kind of asinine to lobby for more recognition for the potential and strengths of your preferred artistic form while backhanding someone else's. It's like refusing to acknowledge comedy as art because you prefer tragedy.
no subject
The book I was reading was Rejected Lovers by William Stieg, copyright 1951. I was looking for books for a paper and ran across this in the library's tiny little graphic arts books, which had a few nice collections I'll forget to look at later. It's not pornography, but there are a smattering of nude women, including some full-frontal nudity, and in general, it's clear that Stieg's subject is mature adult activity, not chaste romance. (Be forewarned: it's entirely about male lovers who've been rejected by their female lovers. Stieg thinks injured male pride is hilarious, and there's not a touch of misogyny in it, but it's very much a book about how men react to women, and in no wise could it be considered a feminist perspective.)
I really love cartoons from the '50s onwards. Maybe it's just the places they were published--magazines, as illustrations in books, or even in artist's collections like this--but they always seem to have a more sophisticated sense of humor than their cousins on the comics page and in comic books. The New Yorker cartoons and Charles Addams are perfect examples of this kind of thing, although Addams, kind of like Gorey, has the added appeal of possessing an extremely twisted sense of humor.
The other day, I was reading a pretty interesting discussion about attempts to structure conceptual definitions of sequential/narrative/comics art etc, and one of the participants was lamenting the way that comics have been lumped in cartoons, which he thinks is just awful because, he implies, cartoons are inherently so shallow and puerile.
While I agree there's great use in distinguishing sequential art from static single images, this is totally a wtf take on it for me, because while sequential art does not have to be cartoonish in nature, it often is for many good reasons having nothing to do with the creator's ability to render, and for that reason, examinations of sequential art should acknowledge and explore the kinship with cartooning every now and then, and also because it's kind of asinine to lobby for more recognition for the potential and strengths of your preferred artistic form while backhanding someone else's. It's like refusing to acknowledge comedy as art because you prefer tragedy.