Ho-kayyyyy...This is one odd critter, beginning with that cover. A demented, fiery clown drops a safe on top of an equally bizarre clown wearing a Sherlock Holmes suit while a dog admires a fireplug. I wouldn't blame some kids (or at least parents) for being scared by this image. It's well-drawn in its way, but it's not funny, it's WEIRD!
Which sums up the lead story. I acknowledge Paddock's thoroughly individual style, but I'm not crazy about it. A little too exaggerated for my tastes. But his art isn't the problem. I'll save you a re-run of my rant about Story Above All. Suffice it to say the whole book suffers from bad stories. Even a bizarre slapstick story must make sense on its own terms. "Firetop" flops because Rick O' Shea is so effing stupid. There's no logical (in story terms) reason why O'Shea can come face-to-face with Firetop, identify all of Firetop's characteristics, even help the guy pull a robbery, and still not recognize him. It just doesn't make sense. And it ain't funny.
Howie Post does some nice art in "Mutton Jeff," but the story stops so abruptly that I swear the publisher dropped a page. "Terwilliger" isn't quite as stupid as Rick O'Shea, so the story is slightly more bearable. "Stone Age Stan" has another nice Post art job, but the story goes nowhere. I like the 1930s-style artwork on "Laundryman" but the author seems to have written it as he went along and made up his ending on the last page.
Editors of "realistic" (I use the word loosely) comics, even the lousy ones, required stories to have a beginning, middle, and end. The story had to have some kind of payoff. I get the impression many "funny" comics editors didn't see it that way. So many old humor comic stories are just a series of gags. The payoff is frequently one last joke, perhaps tying together the earlier bits, or perhaps not. Maybe one reason Archie was so successful is that his editor used plotted stories.