décartournement

"umbrella man" not shown because like these clowns can draw an umbrella

Those on the lookout for thrilling, edgy cartoons (and what the hell does "edgy" mean anyway? All cartoon panels have edges) are unlikely to look at the not-at-all beloved "Gil Thorp"...yet had they done a little digging, they would have found the new plotline the strip was going to begin a few days ago quite disturbingly edge-a-licious indeed. Sadly, the strip, as published, reverted to its unusual incomprehensibility and poorly drawn quasi-human figures (as always, click to illargenate):



The original strip, however, was far darker - a trip back into American history to show just how desperate a failed athlete could get:

why the metric system never caught on in the US

When I was a kid, I remember a big push (from my math teachers in particular) to get everyone to become familiar with the metric system. I remember baseball stadiums (even those not in Canada) suddenly sprouted metric measurements on their outfield fences. Unfortunately, when those signs said things like "106.68 m," they reinforced the notion that the metric system required a nerdy precision, what with carrying things out to a couple-few decimal places. This was completely unnecessary, since in most cases we do not need an exact measurement. I doubt that your typical outfield fence that says "350 ft." is exactly 350 feet - it may be 350 feet give or take a few inches, and given that the fences are rarely curved in such a manner as to be equidistant from home plate, at one point in the "350 ft." sign they will be 349 feet and 6 inches and at the other end of the sign maybe 350 feet and 4 inches.

What should have been emphasized wasn't conversion but familiarity. We really don't need to know most measurements to the centimeter, and it would have been far more effective to know that a meter is a little longer than a yard, a kilometer's a little less than two-thirds of a mile, etc. - but beyond that, we become familiar with these units in reference to what they measure. We're all used to 2-liter beverage containers, for example (for some reason, that measurement took hold). And if we got used to how fast 80 kph felt, or how long it took to drive 125 km on the freeway, who cares about conversion?

things about things

1. "Achewood" once again delights with Chris Onstad's knack for verbal brilliance: the most recent cartoon usefully (and accurately) describes a Cadillac Escalade: "it has the fuel economy of an oil fire and handles like a Best Western."

2. I don't get Mickey Mouse's clothing. Like so many cartoon characters, he apparently can't be bothered to wear both a shirt and pants (thankfully, and unlike Porky Pig, he chooses pants). But what pants! First, it looks like they'd rise all the way up to his nipples (if cartoon characters had nipples, and if mice had nipples arrayed like human nipples, and if human-nipple-bearing mice wore clothes...damn but this is confusing). Second, what are those two white circles supposed to be? Enormous buttons of some sort? Are they functional, or merely decorative? Have actual pants ever been made with buttons in that position, several inches above the wings of the pelvic bone?

And I'm not entirely sure why Mickey's wearing gloves, or why they come with a peculiar rolled-up area at the wrist. Perhaps he doesn't wish to leave fingerprints. (If cartoon characters had fingerprints, and if mice had fingers, and...) But perhaps the oddest aspect of Mickey's wardrobe is his shoes. They look as if they were molded from some sort of plastic, rather like cheesehead hats, and are oddly rounded and again feature a peculiar roll at the ankles. They certainly do not look as if they could be removed. They look rather as if someone dipped Mickey's feet in molten plastic, which hardened permanently around his feet. Walt Disney: animal torturer. Now the truth can be told.

(Sorry, folks who've arrived here by Googling for "nipples": nothing for you here. And doesn't "Googling for nipples" sound sorta like "bobbing for apples"?)

driven to distraction

Exhibit #7,324 concerning why it's a good idea I did not choose a career as a cartoonist (aside from the obvious fact that I cannot draw):
(clicking=enlarging)

animation derby

Naturally, various popular cartoons have inspired websites which allow folks to generate images of themselves rendered in the style of the cartoon. Here are three examples:

Unlike the two Simpsons images below, the site I used to generate this (can't remember where it was, sorry!) has no connection with South Park, as far as I can tell.

This is from the "Simpsonize Me!" website (courtesy yellojkt), which is pretty obviously sponsored by Burger King. It is also slower than Hans Moleman - and it requires you to upload a large-ish image (480x640). It's pretty dumb at recognizing faces as well: of the two images I tried to use, both of which were closely cropped to remove extraneous details like beer bottles and papier-mache aliens, it could find a face in only one of them. (To be fair, that might be my fault. I'm not sure, though, why it thinks I'm Ringo Starr.)

This one's from the site for the Simpsons movie (warning: intrusive sound effects). This site requires no image to begin with (and I should note that the "Simpsonize Me!" site modifies the image so much, it bears almost no resemblance to the source anyway), so it's a bit quicker. As a Bearded-American, however, I'd say its selection of facial hair leaves a bit to be desired...rather amusing since, in fact, I've been told more than once that I sorta look like Matt Groening.

My verdict? The South Park site looks way more like me than either of the Simpsons sites. (Incidentally, I used this photo by Moxiemoo as source for the Simpsonizer site.)

I can has komic histry?

Sheer brilliance. The artwork should remind you of George Herriman's immortal "Krazy Kat," and a close look at some details might suggest that the cartoonist is also a fan of John K. Hodgman.

(The slideshow is the most fun.)

all laid out in black and white

One problem with a lot of current comic strips is that too many of their artists seem unable to actually draw. For example: the comic strip below - which I rendered entirely by myself - exquisitely and exactly renders a detailed impression of each image mentioned in the captions (click to make huge):

at least they're not Comic Sans

As something of a font geek, I admit to a slight chuckle over today's Shoe comic strip...(clicky to embiggen):


I mean, as some folks over at the renowned Comics Curmudgeon site have pointed out, it's kind of a lame set-up - but hey, it's a font joke. Just exactly how many good set-ups for font jokes are there?

if Philip K. Dick wrote "Blondie"

(click to enlarge)

(taken up from a suggestion of Steve S. at the Comics Curmudgeon board)

why I am not a cartoonist

Inspired by a misheard Genesis lyric...