[MarkWarner]

This week's choice is rather an interesting one. I recently received an email from a very good friend of the site who can normally be found roaming DCM. He suggested:

"if you want an oddball book to share I suggest one uploaded a while back with rare Kirby funny animal stories."

Before I post a choice I always check to make sure we haven't already read an issue from the title before. And when I did I found that way back in Week #18 we looked at Punch and Judy v2 1. But as that one had no Kirby I thought it would be "somewhat of a whiz" to read it and see how they compare

The book can be found here: https://comicbookplus.com/?dlid=39845. After a quick flick through "Lockjaw the Alligator" looks like a good candidate for us to concentrate on.

Happy reading!!

[SuperScrounge]

Punch and Judy - Yeahhhhh... okay, I guess.

Lockjaw the Alligator - As opposed to the Inhuman  Eh, was not impressed.

Earl the Rich Rabbit - Yeahhhhhh... I'm beginning to suspect there's a good reason why we don't hear much about Kirby's funny animal stories...

Fatsy McPig - Okay.

Tatters - Meh.

Punch in Business - Is Punch ever not annoying?

Bucky the Mule - Yeahhhh...

Disappointing overall.

[crashryan]

Maybe I'm just in the wrong mood, but I found this downright painful to read. The stories are so bad! The art on "Bucky the Mule" and "Fatsy McPig" is quite good. They're credited to Orestes Calpini, an artist I'm just beginning to know. Unfortunately the stories are choppy, stupid, and downright unfunny.

I've mentioned this before, but I believe that it's a mistake to structure a comic book funny animal story like an animated cartoon. A series of gags based on physical action just doesn't work on paper, no matter how good the artwork. "Fatsy McPig" is a perfect example. The several pages of interaction with the moose could have been quite funny on the screen. In a comic it just sits there. It isn't helped by redundant captions explaining what is in the pictures.

The best of Kelly and Barks feature strong plotting and amusing word play, which do work on paper. Above they attempted to give their characters distinct (and funny) personalities. The only character in this whole comic with a personality is Punch, and he's a jerk.

The story that takes the cake is "Lockjaw the Alligator." Migawd, if ever there was a tin ear for humor, Jack Kirby had it. The story is a complete mess! I'll admit that Lockjaw does have a distinct personality, but it's bizarre to the extreme. What's this with grabbing his human sidekick and using him to swat people? Everything is so weird--like the dentists stalking Lockjaw, then attacking him in his sleep so they can pull his teeth. WTF???

"Earl the Rich Rabbit" isn't as grotesque, but it still doesn't work. Even humor stories need some logic to hold them together, and here there ain't none. Before ending this rant I'll add that Kirby's cartoon art style isn't anything to write home about, either.

To sum the book up in one word: Bleah.

[K1ngcat]

I dunno - I kind of like Lockjaw, his cantankerous personality reminds me of The Thing.  D'you suppose he was the inspiration for my favourite walking orange rockpile?

[Captain Audio]

The artwork of the cover reminds me of a very strange and frankly disturbing comic book I bought at a shoe shop that sold used comics on the side. This was in the late 1950's.

The book looked like the innocent kids comics of the day, but it was far from innocent.

The characters were ants, brown ants and black ants along with other insects as allies or domestic beasts of burden and as food for the ants, engaged in a brutal genocidal campaign complete with rape , torture, mass executions and just about ever perverted act you could imagine.
I burned that book. Now I wish I'd kept it because I'm sure it would be a rare collectors item. Also I'd like for some to see just how wacked out comics could get before the comic book code cracked down.
If marketed solely as an adult comic it would not be so bad, but it was obviously drawn in a style that mimicked the kids comics of the day. the artwork was excellent and the printing top notch.

[The Australian Panther]

I saw a reprint of another 'Lockjaw' some time ago.  Interesting but nothing special.

I think if you are going to evaluate a creative work, you need to see it in the context of its times. If you think of the animated cartoons of the day, 'Tom and Jerry, The bugs bunny crew stuff and their ilk, violent slapstick humor was in vogue. But within limits. And I'd rather watch that stuff than some of the cartoons of today, like 'Ren and Stimpy' for one. The cover is pretty standard cliche. The reader can see something horrible about to happen but the character is oblivious to it. Robert Kanigher used it on nearly every DC war comic.
Kirby may not have been the writer on this strip.

Article here on Kirby's humor strips.

http://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/kirby/archives/category/genre/humour

Also couldn't resist this 'Lockjaw'. Want to deter someone from touching your desk?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4aHkJuTVLA

[Morgus]

Almost every story had a recurring theme of sudden violence that comes out of nowhere. The moose is happy to just eat McPig's food and looks nice and cuddly...until he gets a serial killer look in his eye. Lockjaw using the little guy as a human club on people in a waiting room has already been discussed. Earl the Rich Rabbit's neighbour is totally nasty and unfunny. It DOESN'T help that Earls' story makes no sense whatsoever..But, dang, the whole thing had a train wreck fascination to it. Made it all the way until the last story with the mule smoking up...then had to quit. Dug the ads...what a weird idea...selling stuff for sewing in a comic book. Why??? And I would love to know just what those coats looked like..

[EHowie60]

That pirate story splash page is the first humor story I've seen that might be included in Seduction of the Innocent. Straight-up shooting someone in the back in a daydream sequence. The art's a typical roundish funny-book style. I must say that the arrival of the pirates caught me off guard. But of course it's the old "it's actually a movie set" gag. You'd think that would be obvious right away.

Lockjaw may be Kirby art, but it's Kirby working in a very different style than normal, so really one can't tell. If you want a good example of early Kirby in his own style, try Solar Legion in Crash Comics. I like how Lockjaw is the only talking animal in the comic and no one is fazed by him.

Earl the Rich Rabbit is a jerk. There's a reason super-rich characters in comics are usually written as philanthropists.

Fatsy McPig: I'm surprised Pop didn't get shot, with an opening line like that.

Tatters: well, the idea's original at least. Never seen anything in a comic eat tin cans besides goats.

Bucky the Mule: a heartwarming tale of one young mule's quest to start smoking.

Overall, a fairly standard humor comic. Kirby is so far out of his usual style that he doesn't really help or hinder the thing.

[paw broon]

There's not much to add to what the others have said.  This didn't do it for me. Punch is a really irritating, nasty wee jobby, and then, suddenly, there's a film crew.  EH!?
Lockjaw isn't funny and what passes for a punchline - blacking out his teeth in the ad - is feeble.
As for the rest of the book, I didn't read it, only flicked through the pages. Till I got to Tatters. What a load of stupid, maudlin, old cobblers.
When you think of some of the wonderful, well crafted, funny animal comics that have been created, and compare them to this.................  actually, I don't know how to finish the sentence. 

[narfstar]

I think Crash hit it. Print stories written as animated don't work. I found Lockjaw terrible except the last panel. I was taken by surprise, which is usually a plus for me, by the how did my false teeth have a toothache. This came out of nowhere so gave me a chuckle.

[Yoc]

Hi Gang,
Sorry, it was me that suggested this one to Mark.  I went solely on the unusual artwork angle.  Kirby wasn't known for funny animal and I figured, correctly, that it might generate some conversation.  I didn't read the book first and that seems to have been a mistake.  Sorry, they can't all be winners.  Kirby obviously had better luck with other genres.

-Yoc

[MarkWarner]

Yoc

Why are you apologising???

We at the Reading Group are on a mission to explore the comic book world ... and "good" or "bad" are especially subjective when it comes to comics. So we are not looking to "win" each week that would be boring!

I am running late so will add my tuppence worth in a day or so. Any other suggestions PLEASE message me!

[Robb_K]

I chose to read this book and comment, because I'm a "funny animal comics" creator, as well as a big fan of the genre.  Unfortunately for all of us, "Punch and Judy" is neither remotely in the class of Carl Barks, Floyd Gottfredson or Walt Kelly in artwork OR story writing.  I can't really add anything that wasn't stated above.  The "stories" (if you would dare to call them that, had no logic, and the "plots" made little if any sense.  The so-called jokes were extremely weak, if any existed, at all.  i think the artwork in "Fatsy McPig" is reasonably good (a little less good than Sangor's average level, which I place well above average for the industry as a whole, and roughly comparable to Western's (Dell's) Warber Bros., MGM, and Walter Lantz series.  The rest of the art was somewhat lower quality.  I found literally nothing funny, other than a few expressions on the moose's face.  The ending gags were weak.  The endings of the so-called stories made no sense, and were very unsatisfying.  As stated above, and in the Monkeyshines thread, these low-quality books give the "funny animal comics" genre a bad name (impression to a new reader, who may think all funny animal comics are for toddlers and legal imbeciles).

Maybe in the future, we can read and review a Giggle Comic with Ken Hultgren's "Duke and The Dope", "Spencer Spook", a Jack Bradbury series (such as "Fremont Frog"), and possibly an Al Hubbard or Bob Wickersham story.  That might provide a better impression of 1940s funny animal comics.

[Electricmastro]

I chose to read this book and comment, because I'm a "funny animal comics" creator, as well as a big fan of the genre.  Unfortunately for all of us, "Punch and Judy" is neither remotely in the class of Carl Barks, Floyd Gottfredson or Walt Kelly in artwork OR story writing.  I can't really add anything that wasn't stated above.  The "stories" (if you would dare to call them that, had no logic, and the "plots" made little if any sense.  The so-called jokes were extremely weak, if any existed, at all.  i think the artwork in "Fatsy McPig" is reasonably good (a little less good than Sangor's average level, which I place well above average for the industry as a whole, and roughly comparable to Western's (Dell's) Warber Bros., MGM, and Walter Lantz series.  The rest of the art was somewhat lower quality.  I found literally nothing funny, other than a few expressions on the moose's face.  The ending gags were weak.  The endings of the so-called stories made no sense, and were very unsatisfying.  As stated above, and in the Monkeyshines thread, these low-quality books give the "funny animal comics" genre a bad name (impression to a new reader, who may think all funny animal comics are for toddlers and legal imbeciles).

Maybe in the future, we can read and review a Giggle Comic with Ken Hultgren's "Duke and The Dope", "Spencer Spook", a Jack Bradbury series (such as "Fremont Frog"), and possibly an Al Hubbard or Bob Wickersham story.  That might provide a better impression of 1940s funny animal comics.

Funny, this page reminded me of Carl Barks despite that. I get the feeling it