tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7157513690234917810.post858386941351877749..comments2023-06-16T05:57:18.370-07:00Comments on STANLEY STORIES: Panda, Chicken Visit Land Down Under After Passive-Aggressive Outburst; Woodpecker Plays PI, Is Fall Guy For Evil Rich: two from New Funnies 112, 1946Frank M. Younghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04673579882180372546noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7157513690234917810.post-28900705156687196072012-12-10T11:13:37.686-08:002012-12-10T11:13:37.686-08:00Hi Thad,
Thank you for your bracing honesty. I am...Hi Thad,<br /><br />Thank you for your bracing honesty. I am probably more forgiving of Stanley's poorer work than I might be. But I think presenting the dross here, aside the better pieces, is an acknowledgment of their (lack of) quality.<br /><br />Stanley was a far less even writer than Barks, but he took far more chances than Barks. That is their main difference. Barks always played it safe, colored inside the lines, and did things the "right" way. Within those strictures, he did a great deal.<br /><br />Stanley was held accountable for those strictures with "Little Lulu," which was probably a good thing for him. That he sheds those self-imposed rules, upon leaving "Lulu," and returns to the ragtag ferocity of his '40s work in the '60s, says much about what he wanted to accomplish as a comics creator.<br /><br />As always, your comments are enriching to this blog. Thanks again!Frank M. Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04673579882180372546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7157513690234917810.post-55314186337955345532012-12-10T10:59:36.665-08:002012-12-10T10:59:36.665-08:00The Andy story is merely pedestrian, but the Woody...The Andy story is merely pedestrian, but the Woody story is certainly a bit of a horrific clusterphuck, and the genuine product of a disinterested artist. Stanley really needed to hone his narrative skills through trial and error in the 40s, compared to Barks, who was always a conscientious craftsman. Even in Barks's weaker, blander and, yes, stupider stories, there is a meticulousness that makes sure nothing is amiss logically.<br /><br />Barks would have had a panel or two showing the guy enraged that Woody is "endangering" his daughter, justifying the shift in behavior. Stanley probably would have too, if in a bit more openly biting manner than Barks would have, if he actually cared about tailoring a Woody Woodpecker story. In so many of these Lantz and MGM stories, Stanley clearly <i>did not give a shit</i>. It was just a job, and he clearly was chomping at the bit to save his skills for more Lulu stories in this period. He was always a great writer, so of course gems and strong parallels to later works will spring up. But I think he really needed to escape the environment of working with a gumbo of animal characters to hit his stride with humanoids.<br /><br />I think that "it was just a job" mentality is in Barks's work too, which makes the richness in those stories even more eternal than the works of those who always took themselves too seriously. I'd actually be interested in reading that 60s Barks article of yours. They are an interesting clump of stories, a bit more jagged and jaded than classic Barks, which is probably why they were seldom reprinted.Thadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13776842321547777703noreply@blogger.com