STANLEY STORIES: John Stanley's New Yorker Cartoon, 3/15/1947

Sunday, November 1, 2009

John Stanley's New Yorker Cartoon, 3/15/1947

Thanks to Jeet Heer and James Gill for helping me locate this one-off shot at the Big Time for our hero, John Stanley.

Alas, it's from the well-intentioned CD-ROM within The Complete Cartoons of the New Yorker.

I suppose that, with such a draconian project, it wasn't possible to include every cartoon and have them in large, hi-rez images. For a browser, one just perusing the cartoons for reading pleasure, it's fine, but for us more OCD comix/cartooning devotees, the end result is frustrating.

All that said, I think this is a charming cartoon. Its drawing style completely ties in with the "Little Lulu," "Woody Woodpecker" and "Jigger" stories Stanley drew around this time.

It's rumored that Stanley continued to write cartoons for other New Yorker artists. Apparently, correspondence exists in the magazine's files. When next I get to NYC, I'd love to spend a day (or two) researching this, and seeing if I can find out exactly how long Stanley's connection to this high-status magazine lasted--and why HE didn't continue as a cartoonist there.

This is just as good, if not better than, some severe competition in the March 15, 1947 issue. Stanley is up against Charles Addams, Sam Cobean, R. Taylor and other big-leaguers.

This cartoon has a strong thematic link to his contemporary comix--the theme of rich vs. poor, and of the underprivileged yearning for the creature comforts of the well-off.

I wish this was a better-quality image, but it's the best the book's CD-ROM offers. I hope to find an original copy of this issue soon. I'll scan the cartoon and post it here if/when.

3 comments:

Paul C.Tumey said...: Great to fonally see this charming cartoon in any form. Inetresting that Stanley's humor is tinged with melancholy here. Thanks for sharing it!; November 1, 2009 at 6:20 PM
Gabriel said...: Absolutely agree with you, Paul. Your deep insight strikes again :)
Stanley always seems to be dragging a primeval melancholy with him, even in his more comic moments. As if he couldn't think of a bright moment without sprinkles some drops of gloominess.
I think that is this feature what turns him into a different cartoonist (and perhaps he's my favorite one on account of that) I mean-- you can really trail this melancholy (not sadness) from the beginning. I'm bearing in mind Peterkin Pottle, for instance --yes, I know, Peterkin Pottle, again! Such a pest! :)
Good luck with your search, Frank!; November 2, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Paul C.Tumey said...: Building on Gabriel's comment (thanks for the compliment!) about the melancholic aspect of Stanley's work (I know you've written a lot about this, Frank)... perhaps that's why his Lulu and Tubby ghost and Halloween stories are my favorites of his work. They seem to be extremely captivating and present for both the creator and the audience. I still can't get over how it was that "Guest in the Ghost Hotel" got reprinted in Art Speigelman's and Francois Mouley's recent great TOON TREASURY. Thank you Frank, for sharing the recent Hefty bag of autumnal goodies on this here bodacious blog!; November 2, 2009 at 4:44 PM

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.