STANLEY STORIES: this blog

Showing posts with label this blog. Show all posts

Thursday, January 29, 2009

I'm at a crossroads...

When I began "Stanley Stories" as a primitive website in 2000, John Stanley's work was almost entirely unreprinted. Only the flawed but essential Little Lulu Library had been issued, and that was 15 years prior.

In 2009, we will see the publication of several new volumes of John Stanley comics--from Drawn + Quarterly's series of Stanley's 1960s work, to Dark Horse's continuation of the Lulu reprints (and, just announced, the run of Stanley's companion title Tubby) to the upcoming Toon Treasury, a thick hardcover book of great "kid's comics" from the 1930s to the '60s, including a substantial section on John Stanley, to which I contributed input.

All this reprinting is wonderful. It restores John Stanley's largely-unread work to a mass audience. I'm all for it.

What does it mean for the future of this blog?

I've gone out of my way to avoid posting any stories that already exist in an in-print, available edition.

With D+Q reprinting Dunc 'n' Loo, Nancy, Melvin Monster and Thirteen Going on Eighteen, and DH finishing the Stanley run of the Marge-based titles, that doesn't leave much wiggle room for me.

I'd like to get your honest feedback:

Would you rather I avoid this material, as it will be available in book form within the next few years?

Shall I restrain myself only to the material that will obviously never be reprinted (the Walter Lantz-based material, etc.)?

Or should I comment on stories without "reprinting" them here, and creating a redundancy with the soon-to-be-published books? As I understand it, none of these books will offer anything substantial in the way of introductions or critical commentary.

At least 60% of what I've posted on this blog, so far, will be in those books.

I enjoy working in this blog, and I feel that, in many cases, I am the first person to ever offer critical analysis of this work. Is that enough to sustain your interest as a reader?

Thanks. I await your input. I'm a worry-wart, so I may be fretting over nothing at all.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

UPDATE: Wow! Thanks for your comments! I feel utterly reassured!
Look for a new post with a couple of Stanley stories this weekend...

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

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.