Reuben Award Prediction Edition!

[Hogan's Alley]

READ THIS NEWSLETTER ON THE WEB:
http://groups.google.com/group/hogans-alley-newsletter?lnk=srg

Dear fellow comics fan:

Thanks to everyone who requested a copy of Hogan's Alley on Free Comic
Book Day. Response was overwhelming, and we’re preparing the mailing
now to go out soon.

Lots to talk about in this newsletter, so let's get to it. We’ve been
reading the new omnibus comic strip history, “The Comics: The Complete
Collection,” by Brian Walker. The book combines his two earlier
histories, creating a compelling and sweeping narrative about the
evolution of our favorite art form. We've read many comics histories,
and this one definitely merits a place on the Alley's bookshelf.
Generously illustrated, the book contains many pieces of art shot
directly from the originals. We recently spoke with Walker about his
work in researching and writing the book.
_______________________________________________

HA: Did the process of working on this book lead you to reassess any
cartoonists' work, or their role in the development of the cartooning
art form?

BW: When I started writing the first of the two volumes that now make
up “The Comics: The Complete Collection,” I made a conscious decision
to take on the role of an historian, rather than an art critic. As a
result, I focused primarily on how the newspaper business developed
and how the syndicates made the success of popular strips possible. By
the 1920s, when the industry as we know it today was well established,
the three most prominent cartoonists were Bud Fisher (“Mutt and
Jeff”), George McManus (“Bringing Up Father”) and Sydney Smith (“The
Gumps”). Fisher and Smith are not regarded today as among the great
cartoon artists of all time, but in their time, they helped to spread
the popularity of comics and pave the way for the careers of
cartoonists who followed in their footsteps. Fisher, for instance,
fought a long court battle with Hearst over the ownership of “Mutt and
Jeff” and, when he won the case, became the first cartoonist to
control his own feature. “The Gumps” was phenomenally popular with
newspaper readers, and Smith signed a much-publicized ten-year,
million-dollar contract with the Chicago Tribune-New York News
syndicate in 1922.

HA: In your book, you elevate some cartoonists to “master” status, and
we see a lot of familiar names: Herriman, Outcault, etc. But who would
you say are the innovators and visionaries that are not household
words among cartooning fans, who might deserve to be more widely known
than they are?

BW: Roy Crane is the artist whose contribution is most often
overlooked. When Crane introduced the swashbuckling hero, Captain
Easy, into “Wash Tubbs” in 1929, he pioneered the adventure strip
format, which revolutionized newspaper comics in the 1930s. He
continued to innovate with “Buz Sawyer,” which he created in 1943, but
is often not mentioned when historians laud praise on other adventure
strip creators like Hal Foster, Alex Raymond and Milton Caniff.

Among the many other artists who are no longer familiar names but made
significant contributions to the form and content of newspaper comics
in the first half of the century were Clare Briggs, H.T. Webster, J.R.
Williams, “Tad” Dorgan, Cliff Sterrett and Billy DeBeck. Among the
great talents of the second half of the century who, I believe, are
underappreciated include Bud Blake, Ted Shearer, Gus Arriola, Dik
Browne and Jim Meddick.

HA: Just as the comics page has reflected social trends throughout
their existence, some events had great impact on the comics page:
newsprint shortages, the advent of TV, etc. What would you say are
among the most influential developments whose effects are still felt
today?

BW: One significant development that I discovered in my research was
the impact that the introduction of advertising in the Sunday comics
had on the formats of features in the 1930s. Syndicates began offering
Sunday comics in different configurations--full page, half-page, third-
page--so advertisers could place their ads next to popular comics.
This was the beginning of the end for full-page newspaper comics in
the Sunday funnies.

Paper rationing in World War II led to the reduction in size that both
daily and Sunday comics were printed in newspapers. The syndicates
preferred that newspapers ran comics smaller instead of canceling
features and offered their strips in different column widths.
Cartoonists and syndicates were so accommodating in fact, that after
the war ended, many of these format changes remained in place.

During the 1950s, as television began to dominate the leisure time of
most Americans, newspaper editors made the assumption that readers no
longer had the patience to follow comic strip stories that took weeks
to develop when they could watch a drama program on TV in an hour or
less. Although Milton Caniff and other cartoonists argued persuasively
that this was a misperception, continuity strips went into a decline
that they never recovered from.

Digital media in the 21st century has definitely had an adverse impact
on newspapers and the survival of comics as we know them is
threatened. It remains to be seen what the future of newspaper comics
will be, but I am convinced that cartoonists are a resilient breed and
will invent new ways to deliver graphic entertainment to a mass
audience.

HA: You've grown up in the industry and have made a lifelong study of
the cartoon art form. But what revelations did you have in the course
of researching your book?

BW: I often joke that I was born with ink in my veins. My father and
his cartoonist associates were like an extended family but, until I
started working at the Museum of Cartoon Art in 1974, I took it for
granted. Assembling exhibits at the museum was like a crash course in
the history of cartoon art. Although I have served as curator for more
than 70 cartoon exhibitions and written, edited and contributed to
three dozen books on comics, I still learn something new about the art
form almost every day.

After researching and editing the two-volume history of American
newspaper comics for Abrams, I was left with a deep respect for how
adaptable and inventive cartoonists are. They’ve survived the
challenges posed by the introduction of radio, television and
computers and continue to come up with new ways to combine words and
pictures. The possibilities are limitless, and I remain optimistic
about the future of the art form.

HA: Some people who study comics have devised strict definitions and
guidelines of what constitutes a comic strip: it has to be sequential,
it has to have dialogue, etc. Personally, I've always felt those
people were overthinking what makes a comic strip. Do you have any
ideas along those lines, and did they change or evolve in the course
of your research?

BW: I am a member of an online forum for comic scholars who are
actively engaged in documenting the evolution of the art form during
the 19th century and earlier. Many of these researchers believe that
the reputation the Yellow Kid has as the first comic strip character
is based on a myth, since all of the defining elements of the comic
strip were well established before he came on the scene. In the
introduction to “The Comics Before 1945,” I presented both sides of
this argument but concluded that, “Richard F. Outcault's Hogan's Alley
was the first successful newspaper comic feature--no more, no less.”

A cartoon is a picture that tells a story or conveys an idea and a
newspaper comic is a cartoon that appears in a newspaper. To me, it's
that simple. Speech balloons, recurring characters and sequential
panels are tools that cartoonists use but are not, in themselves, the
defining elements of the art form.

I also think it’s important to distinguish between the unique
parameters of different commercial venues that publish cartoons.
Newspaper comic strip artists do not operate under the same conditions
and restrictions that comic book, magazine, editorial, alternative or
graphic novel creators deal with. Many writers make the mistake of
commingling these distinct disciplines, which often leads to false
conclusions and misperceptions.

HA: Are there cartoonists whose work you didn't care for in the past,
only to rediscover qualities in it that you've come to enjoy and
admire more recently?

BW: My appreciation for cartoon art became more refined when I did
retrospectives at the museum that paid tribute to the great masters of
the past, such as Winsor McCay and George Herriman. I also developed a
distaste for what I thought were second-rate, gag-a-day strips like
Ernie Bushmiller's “Nancy,” that were only read by little children and
old ladies. I had become a comic snob. In the late 1980s, David
Stanford, who was an editor at Henry Holt, asked me if I would be
interested in writing a book about Bushmiller and his creation. I told
David that I hated “Nancy,” but he convinced me to take on the
project. This led to a surprising journey of discovery as I
interviewed the leading Bushmiller acolytes, including Jerry Moriarty,
Michael Frith, Denis Kitchen, Art Spiegelman, Bill Griffith, Paul
Karasik and Mark Newgarden. Eventually, I became a convert and am now
an official member of the Bushmiller Society. I developed an
appreciation for the deceptively simple and occasional surreal
qualities of his work. Ernie's advice to other cartoonists was, “Dumb
it down.” Although I don't take this literally, I do strive for
economy and clarity in the ideas I write for “Beetle Bailey” and “Hi
and Lois.”

HA: I've often thought that comic strip creators today work in the
shadow of Charles Schulz--his innovations and contributions are so
numerous and gargantuan as to simply be inescapable. Before Schulz, do
you think there was any such seminal figure who introduced so many
innovations? For example, while other cartoonists respected George
Herriman's work on Krazy Kat, that strip never cast the long shadow
that “Peanuts” did for so many years.

BW: Schulz's creation was a brilliant combination of simple graphics,
sophisticated humor and commercial adaptability. In an age when
television was pulling readers away from newspapers, a comic strip
that delivered wit and wisdom in daily doses and appealed to adults as
well as children was exactly what editors were looking for. “Peanuts”
not only answered the challenges of size reduction in newspapers and
competition from television, it was a major influence, in terms of
content, on the next generation of comics creators.

Another influential cartoonist was Milton Caniff. His trademark style,
which he developed in the 1930s with the help of his studio mate Noel
Sickles, blended cinematic composition, atmospheric effects and
realistic rendering with violent action, sex appeal and dramatic
suspense. The”Caniff School” of adventure strip illustrators included
Frank Robbins, Ray Bailey and Alfred Andriola, as well as his
successor on “Terry and the Pirates,” George Wunder.

The evolution of the art form could be represented by a family tree
with large branches for the main genres and smaller limbs for the many
stylistic innovations that cartoonists have explored. There are
numerous creations that defy imitation and others that are more
adaptable. Some influences are unconscious. Bill Watterson claimed he
was unaware of Crockett Johnson's “Barnaby” when he created “Calvin
and Hobbes.” The bigfoot style that my father perfected in “Beetle
Bailey” was so widely imitated that it came to be known as the
“Connecticut School.” This complex web of influences and
interconnections is what comics scholars love to document and debate.
The history of the art form has a rich legacy of creative evolution.

HA: Like me, you grew up enjoying both comic strips and comic books.
Did your research on comic strip history lead you to discover anything
about comic books or their creators that, to your mind, shed new light
on their parallel, yet very different, histories?

BW: I was born in 1952 and, like most baby boomers, grew up reading
“MAD” magazine and “Archie” comics. When the Marvel Silver Age began,
I spent my paper route money on “Fantastic Four” and “Spider-Man”
comics. During college, I discovered underground comics and in the
1970s followed more sophisticated titles like “Conan,” “Swamp Thing”
and “Dr. Strange.” At the Museum of Cartoon Art in the 1980s, I did
exhibitions of “Batman” and “Superman” as well as the one-man
retrospective, “The Art of Will Eisner.” Since then, I haven't kept up
with the comic book scene. It's not that I don't like the work being
done, it's just that I can't find the time.

The success of comic books in the late 1930s definitely got the
attention of newspaper syndicates. Comic strip adaptations of
“Superman” and “Batman” were soon introduced and newspaper comic book
inserts, like “The Spirit,” were conceived as competition to the new
medium. Many of the young artists who worked in the comic book
industry in the early years dreamed of attaining the fame and success
of creators like Hal Foster, Alex Raymond and Milton Caniff, who
dominated the adventure strip genre. Unfortunately, most of these
comic book artists were underpaid and exploited by the publishers.
Syndicated cartoonists tended to be better compensated.

The difference between these two fields was dramatically revealed
during the congressional hearings into comic books and juvenile
delinquency during the early 1950s. The newspaper cartoonists who
testified at these hearings, including Milton Caniff and Walt Kelly,
made it clear to the congressmen that their field was more carefully
regulated than the comic book business. They wanted to distance
themselves from the criticism being aimed at comic book publishers and
artists.

After the Comics Code was adopted and the comic book business went
into decline, many artists, including Wally Wood, Lou Fine and Jack
Kirby, tried to break into syndication but didn't succeed. The top
story strip artists, like Leonard Starr and Stan Drake, were recruited
from advertising agencies. Although the comic book artists now have
more creative control and receive better financial remuneration for
their work, I still think there is a large divide between the two
professions.

HA: In the 1950s, newspapers in general and comic strip syndicates
specifically felt threatened by the rise of television as an
entertainment medium, yet they adapted to the reshaped environment and
thrived. Do you see any parallels between that period and the current
one, which has seen the Internet dominate the media landscape? How
does the comic strip remain a viable form--both creatively and
economically--in the Internet era?

BW: The difference between the current situation and the challenges
presented by movies, radio and television in previous decades is that
the very existence of newspapers as we know them is being threatened.
Although I think there will always be printed newspapers, the future
of the medium is probably in digital form. Since newspaper comics are
dependent on newspapers, their fate is also in a precarious situation.
Syndication has provided many cartoonists with lucrative careers by
splitting the revenues from their client newspapers, which can number
as many as two thousand. This business model will probably not
survive.

One positive aspect of digital media is that any cartoonist can put
their work on the web and see what happens. They don't have to
convince a syndicate to take a chance on them, and they don't have to
share the profits. Right now, however, the income produced by web
comics is relatively minimal. But the potential to become phenomenally
successful is still there. A good example is Jeff Kinney, who
introduced “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” on his website before adapting it to
book form, and is now a best-selling author. This might be a future
career path for other aspiring cartoonists.

__________________________________________

If you’re interested in getting this book, it’s an unbeatable value
(with free shipping) at Amazon. Just click http://amzn.to/kCdJYN

“AND THE WINNER IS” DEPT.: If it’s springtime, it’s awards season for
cartoonists! The movies have the Oscars, television has the Emmys, and
cartooning has the only slightly less prestigious Reuben Awards. The
membership of the National Cartoonists Society has nominated
cartoonists in a range of categories, and the winners will be
announced on May 28. Longtime readers of this newsletter are aware of
our predictive abilities, so the staff of Hogan’s Alley, using our
peerless insight, an Ouija board, some tea leaves and a quick call to
Sydney Omarr, has once again bravely made our fearless predictions for
the categories.

NOMINEES FOR THE COMIC BOOK DIVISION AWARD: Stan Sakai (“Usagi
Yojimbo”), Chris Samnee (“Thor the Mighty Avenger”) and Jill Thompson
(“Beasts of Burden”) SHOULD WIN: “Beasts of Burden,” a series drawn by
Thompson and written by “Milk and Cheese” mastermind Evan Dorkin, is a
masterful, painterly departure from comic book tropes. WILL WIN: Sakai
has been producing Usagi stories since 1984 and has only gotten better
with age. The longtime familiarity of the character will play well
with NCS voters, who respect longevity.

NOMINEES FOR THE EDITORIAL CARTOON AWARD: Bob Gorrell, Mike Lester and
Gary Varvel. From the midterm elections to the death of Osama bin
Laden, the year was a moveable feast for political cartoonists, and
the three nominees had banner years. SHOULD WIN: Gary Varvel, of the
Indianapolis Star, produced some of the most trenchant, incisive work
in the industry. WILL WIN: Bob Gorrell’s work had its finger on the
pulse of an apprehensive America in the wake of recession, health care
uncertainty, shrinking personal wealth and more, and voters reward his
vision.

NOMINEES FOR THE GAG CARTOON DIVISION AWARD: Bob Eckstein, Zachary
Kanin and Gary McCoy. McCoy madness! Gary’s brother Glenn won this
category last year. SHOULD WIN: McCoy’s work is almost inescapable,
between newspapers, magazine, greeting cards, Playboy magazine and
even Parade magazine, and it’s always imaginative and offbeat. WILL
WIN: As they did with his brother, voters will deliver the hardware to
McCoy, bringing peace and harmony to the McCoy family.

NOMINEES FOR THE ANIMATION FEATURE DIVISION AWARD: Dean DeBlois and
Chris Sanders (directors, “How to Train Your Dragon”), Glen Keane
(animation director, “Tangled”) and Nicolas Marlet (character
designer, ”How to Train Your Dragon”). Without a Pixar entrant this
year, the playing field for nominees is level. SHOULD WIN: “Dragon”
was clever and visually innovative, but dual nominations will split
the vote, opening the door for…. WILL WIN: Despite its long and
troubled gestation, “Tangled” cleaned up at the box office and won
acclaim, and Keane reaps the award. (The facts that little brother
Jeff is president of the NCS and his dad is the legendary Bil don’t
hurt his chances, either.)

NOMINEES FOR THE TELEVISION ANIMATION DIVISION AWARD: Dave Filoni
(“Star Wars: The Clone Wars”), Dan Krall (“Scooby-Doo! Mystery
Incorporated”) and Scott Willis (“Sym-Bionic Titan”). Both “Scooby”
and “Star Wars” mine decades-old concepts in attempts to speak to
today’s audiences. SHOULD WIN: “Star Wars: The Clone Wars” eschews the
frenetic pace and gratuitous visuals that dominate so much children’s
programming, delivering a program adults can also enjoy. WILL WIN: Few
brand names get more fan attention than “Star Wars,” and cartoonists
are nothing if not fanboys (and -girls) at heart.

NOMINEES FOR THE NEWSPAPER ILLUSTRATION AWARD: Sean Kelly, Michael
McParlane and Dave Whamond. Kelly won this division in 2007 (the staff
of Hogan’s Alley remembers vividly because we were seated with Kelly
at the same banquet table during the awards ceremony). SHOULD WIN:
Kelly has few peers when it comes to setting the table for a newspaper
article. WILL WIN: Whamond—also a syndicated cartoonist with “Reality
Check”—uses cartoon influences skillfully in his newspaper
illustrations, which should prove influential with voters.

NOMINEES FOR THE NEWSPAPER PANEL AWARD: Doug Bratton (“Pop Culture
Therapy”), Chad Carpenter (“Tundra”) and Glenn McCoy (“The Flying
McCoys”). Always a tough lineup this year is no different and pits the
relative newcomer (Bratton) against two heavyweights of the cartoon
panel. SHOULD WIN: McCoy, one half of the sibling duo behind “The
Flying McCoys,” continues an impressively consistent and imaginative
run on the panel, but... WILL WIN: Many NCS members are rightfully
enamored of Carpenter’s “Tundra,” delivering a well-deserved award.

NOMINEES FOR THE GRAPHIC NOVEL AWARD: Darwyn Cooke (“The Outfit”),
Joyce Farmer (“Special Exits”) and James Sturm (“Market Day”). Three
very different contenders, all telling strong stories with unique
points of view. SHOULD WIN: Farmer’s book tells a story of caring for
aging parents with sensitivity and insight. While not overtly
autobiographical, it has the ring of truth that many readers recognize
and respond to. WILL WIN: The story Farmer tells is one to which
everyone can relate. Though best known as a feminist underground
cartoonist, she emerges above ground with “Special Exits” and walks
away with the hardware.

NOMINEES FOR THE GREETING CARD AWARD: Jim Benton, Dan Collins and
Teresa Roberts Logan. One of the four categories with a female
nominee, the greeting card division has traditionally been hospitable
to women artists. SHOULD WIN: Last year, Debbie Tommasi won the
division, and we don’t think the ladies will go back to back, despite
the considerable merits of Logan’s work, so... WILL WIN: Collins’
solid gags and top-notch draftsmanship carries the day here.

NOMINEES FOR THE ADVERTISING ILUSTRATION AWARD: Anton Emdin, Jack
Pittman, and Dave Whamond. SHOULD WIN: Pittman’s advertising work, and
illustration in general, has a vibrant, cheeky humor that often
includes incisive parodies of other media. WILL WIN: Emdin’s sleek,
modernist rendering has won him many fans, including members of the
NCS.

NOMINEES FOR THE NEWSPAPER STRIP DIVISION AWARD: Brian Bassett (“Red
and Rover”), Jeff Parker and Steve Kelley (“Dustin”) and Richard
Thompson (“Cul de Sac”). In any other year, this field would be
competitive, with three very different striups with distinct points of
view. SHOULD WIN: Thompson kept “Cul de Sac” working at a very high
level, suggesting that the strip will be a force in the industry for a
long time. WILL WIN: Clear off some more mantel space, Thompson.

NOMINEES FOR THE MAGAZINE FEATURE/MAGAZINE ILUSTRATION AWARD: Lou
Brooks, Anton Edmin and Tom Richmond. As the publisher of a print
magazine, this category is near and dear to our hearts, and all three
nominees produced fantastic work in 2010. SHOULD WIN: Richmond is to
today’s MAD Magazine readers what Mort Drucker was to an earlier
generation of readers—a virtuoso parodist and caricaturist. (Except
for the fact that Drucker is still leaving everyone else in the dust.)
WILL WIN: Richmond’s superb work wins on its own merits, and his
yeoman work in the NCS hierarchy cements the win, as the years have
fostered members’ immense respect and affection for him.

NOMINEES FOR THE BOOK ILUSTRATION AWARD: Sandra Boynton (“Amazing
Cows”), Jared Lee (“The 3 Wise Guys”) and Mike Lester (“The Butt
Book”). Despite the meteoric popularity of reading books on tablets
and other handheld devices, the quality of illustration work done in
printed books remains astoundingly high. SHOULD WIN: We’ve always been
big fans of Boynton’s, and her newest book didn’t disappoint. (And
special kudos from these fanboys for an Action Comics homage on the
book’s cover!). WILL WIN: All three nominees have ardent fan bases
among NCS voters, but Boynton is about as close to a brand name as
they get. The New England resident picks up the plaque on her home
turf.

NOMINEES FOR THE REUBEN AWARD: In the running for the top award are
Glen Keane, Stephan Pastis, and Richard Thompson. This is a tough line-
up, as it should be. It represents Keane’s first nomination for the
Reuben (though he’s nominated for the Feature Animation division,
you’ll recall.) But it’s Thompson’s second Reuben Award nomination and
Pastis’s third. SHOULD WIN: Pastis has been on top of his game for
long enough with his trenchant work on “Pearls Before Swine” that he
can rightfully be considered “Cartoonist of the Year.” WILL WIN:
Thompson has cultivated a rabid following among fans—and voting NCS
members-- with his “Cul de Sac” strip. Plus, he’s been in cartooning
news headlines a great deal, and not for Charlie Sheen-style reasons:
his diagnosis with Parkinson’s Disease, and his involvement in raising
awareness and funding for research, have generated reservoirs of
goodwill among his peers, who have immense respect for the work and
affection for the artist. So Richard, prepare to be photographed into
the wee hours, to be followed by days of creative paralysis.

TRIVIA TIME, REUBEN EDITION: While you’re in a Reuben Award state of
mind, mull these questions over to see how much you know about the
people who have won cartooning’s top honor in years past:

A. Several cartoonists have won multiple Reuben Awards. But who is the
only back-to-back winner?
B. Who was the first Reuben Award winner to win for his sports
cartooning?
C. Who was the first Reuben Award winner primarily associated with Mad
magazine?
D. Which Reuben Award winner is best known for his pantomime strip?
E. Who was the first Reuben Award winner to win for his political
cartooning?
(Answers below)


ANSWERS TO TRIVIA TIME:
A. Jeff MacNelly (1978 and 1979)
B. Willard Mullin (1954)
C. Mort Drucker (1987)
D. Otto Soglow, “The Little King” (1966)
E. Herbert Block (1956)

Speaking of Reuben Awards, shortly after the National Cartoonist
Society’s awards weekend, we’ll unveil this year’s online photo album
capturing moments both dignified and mortifying, and we’ll send you a
newsletter to let you know when it’s available.

HOGAN IS TWITTERING: If you’d like to receive cartooning news and the
occasional cartooning-related observation from Hogan’s Alley, we’re
@HOGANMAG on Twitter. We’ll be live-tweeting the NCS awards on May 28,
so start following us today!

Thank you for reading. We encourage you to forward this e-mail to
anyone who might enjoy it. To unsubscribe to this newsletter (or if
you are receiving duplicate transmissions), e-mail us at
hoga...@gmail.com or visit http://groups.google.com/group/hogans-alley-newsletter?lnk=srg.
Please visit our Web site at http://www.hoganmag.com.