Amazing how different readers, and comics creators can have very different tastes that sometimes overlap. I've always LOVED Sparky Watts for the zany comedy (from out of the clear blue sky). How did he think of those ideas? And have the nerve to draw them? I don't love the artwork, but it's passable combined with the zany comedy. I absolutely HATE the look of Basil Wolverton's comics. But I do think some of his stories and characters are very inventive and funny. While other characters and stories of his are dreadfully dull and boring, and seem absolutely worthless to me. I absolutely HATE Robert Crumb's art, as well as that of most of the US 1970s "Underground Comics". I also don't think those are clever or funny. But, then, having been raised basically by grandparents who were raised in The 1800s in Europe, and were very conservative, and backwards-looking as it was, I'm more a creature of the late 1800s and early 1900s (which is probably why I got along so well with Carl Barks) and love "old-fashioned humour". I love Sparky's wild dream scenes, best - with scaly funny-looking monsters. Yet, I don't care at all for monster-filled adventure stories with Human characters. I guess it takes all kinds to make The World.
Link to the comment:
Sparky Watts 1
