STANLEY STORIES: Jigger, Mooch and "food that don't fight back:" from "Animal Comics" #28, 1948

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Jigger, Mooch and "food that don't fight back:" from "Animal Comics" #28, 1948

By popular demand...here's another of the handful of "Jigger" stories that John Stanley wrote and drew for Animal Comics.

Typically for this series (and 1940s Stanley), we have a pair of dispossessed figures who leave their familiar world for unknown places. In this case, these two city dogs elect to head for the sticks, in search of food that little Jigger swears "jus' lays around on the ground!"

Stanley has these two canine characters' personas down by this story. Jigger is a typical Stanley protagonist. He's driven to see his plans succeed, even when life has shown him that they typically don't pan out. Mooch is content to lie on a dirty sidewalk, and takes much prodding and convincing by his tiny pal to even get to his feet.

Mooch remains unwooed by the charms of the wide-open spaces, where even the apples seem to have it out for him.

The settings are familiar Stanley territory. This run-down, utilitarian urban landscape--one that looks distinctly Northeastern--is the stage for hundreds of John Stanley's stories. Most of Little Lulu and Tubby take place in this anonymous Anywhere, USA.

Wish I had more to say about this story. I kinda shot my wad on "Jigger" in the previous post on this series. I love Stanley's highly stylized, tight cartooning on this series. His artwork never looked the same anywhere else.

Hope you enjoy this story, and thanks for dropping by! I'll do another post tomorrow...probably some more stories from Dunc 'n' Loo!

No comments:

THE JOHN STANLEY COMICS BIBLIOGRAPHY SERIES

I have compiled a detailed, fully illustrated (in color) story-by-story career bibliography of the comic book and magazine cartoon work of John Stanley, in three decade-specific oversized paperback editions. They're available in book form at Amazon.com.

You can read more about the 1940s volume HERE.

Check out the 1950s edition (the longest of the three books) HERE.

The 1960s volume can be previewed HERE.

Covers of the three books are seen below--and that of THE TAO OF YOW, a lavishly illustrated book of essays on John Stanley's world and his work, including expanded versions of essays first seen on this blog. TAO OF YOW may be perused HERE.

A FERVENT PLEA TO FELLOW BLOGGERS

I would like to suggest that the following grammatical and punctuation errors be avoided by one and all;

1) misuse of the possessive apostrophe-s. It's means "it is," not "its." Appropriate use, e.g.: "It's hot outside today." Wrong usage: "I looked at it's cover."

I see this horrid mistake committed hundreds of times daily on the Internet and elsewhere. If a word ends in an s, chances are someone will ram that apostrophe in there. (e.g., "Today's Special's").

Please, please, PLEASE--unless you intend to convey that a person, place or thing is being discussed, in the present tense, or is in use as a contraction of two words (i.e., "it is, let us, what is"), DO NOT USE THE APOSTROPHE!

2) misuse of the apostrophe in dates. Again: unless it is intended to convey the location or possession of a certain quality, such as "1867's drinking water supplies" or "1978's energy crisis," DO NOT USE THE APOSTROPHE! The same applies to the use of decade-connoting dates. It is the 1950s, or the '50s--NOT the 1950's or the 50's!

3) the two most abused words in the English language are "amazing" and "hilarious." It pains me to see these words used thousands of times a day in print and in conversation.

If everything is amazing and/or hilarious, then NOTHING is amazing and/or hilarious.

There exists a wealth of synonyms--delightful words that convey these two properties. Please, please, please use them in the place of these two horribly over-worked adjectives.

Visit synonym.com for easy access to other words that will help you communicate better and smarter.

4) When in doubt, use Spell Check.

Computer users have a luxury--we can instantly determine if a word we've typed is properly spelled. Any computer's spell checking program will inevitably have bugs, but most of the time it's quite helpful.

There is no good reason (aside from un-caught typos) that Internet writing should have spelling errors. We no longer have to interrupt our work, walk over to the bookshelf, pull out the dictionary, find the word, and return to our task. Right-click on a highlighted word and you'll know if it's correct or not.

The speed of the Internet sometimes inspires sloppiness--in myself and in others. In our excitement to get our writing on-line, it's easy to forget that finely-tuned prose may require a little more time.

It is worth the effort--and it takes little effort anymore--to double-check spelling before you make a post live. I often go over old posts and correct typos or poor writing. I feel it makes a difference, and that it supports my worth as a scholar and critic.

If this plea can prevent the egregious misuse of proper English in the blogosphere, my life will not have been in vain.