STANLEY STORIES: Masked Rodent Serial Thief Attacks; Jam, Cookies Heisted; Several Traps Thwarted--"Andy Panda" from New Funnies 85, 1944

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Masked Rodent Serial Thief Attacks; Jam, Cookies Heisted; Several Traps Thwarted--"Andy Panda" from New Funnies 85, 1944

Thanks, once again, to that dauntless digital scanner known as "sooth." He/she has provided another early piece of the John Stanley puzzle.

I believe I have all of John Stanley's published comics work now, thanks to Michael Barrier's kind scanning of three remaining issues of New Funnies that were missing.

Back to our scheduled broadcast...

Another early New Funnies issue = another snappy, high-spirited romp from the learning-curve days of John Stanley's comics career. Stanley appears to have cartooned this story, which teems with his tell-tale character designs, poses and, most vividly, his distinctive lettering.

This ultra-cutesy cover kinda gives me the bends, but it, too, appears to be from Stanley's hand.

And now, onto our main feature...

This story seems to be a sequel (or re-think) of the "Panda" piece from two issues earlier. This story has a sounder narrative shell, but exists only as a set-up for pratfalls, mishaps and as a laboratory for Stanley's development of the "Tubby Type" (or "ASS"-- Aggressive/Alienated Status Seeker).

Like the early 10-page "Donald Duck" stories of Carl Barks, this chooses to stay close to home. The first panel has an exterior scene. From then on, it's INTERIOR: BUNGALOW. This seems to help Stanley-the-cartoonist. He keeps his figures and set-ups simple and clear.

Charlie's emergent cowardice, and the a-hole personality of "Th' Boiglar" squirrel, are the most noteworthy aspects of this early effort. His comic book swearing in the last panel gives this story a final belly-laugh.

Note the p. 7 walk-on by what appears to be Jerry from the "Tom and Jerry" series at Our Gang Comics. I'm certain he was not paid for this un-billed guest appearance.

Chaser: a one-page "Woody Woodpecker" gag page also written/drawn by Stanley. I'm curious if there is a similar page in the previous issue. (The Overstreet comics price guide says no, but it's full of wrong information on lesser-known comics, so the jury's still out.) Woody's series inaugurated with this unforgettable story in New Funnies 86.

I don't think I've run the two-pager that also appeared in issue 86. Here 'tis:

Both pieces are nice examples of John Stanley's vivid 1940s cartooning style. Nothing great was intended, or expected of them.

Stanley's love of filling a panel with humorous information--a staple of his finest work on Little Lulu, Tubby and his 1960s series--is evident in the fifth panel. Woody's visits to the cracker barrel are frequent, from the irritation shown by grocer McBooble. The grocer's irked resignation, and Woody's blatant abuse of their relationship, provide a small moment of brilliance.

Note the mouse on p.1 of this filler piece. I guess times were tough for Jerry in early 1944.

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.