Emsworth Sat Jun 12 11:58:19 2004
Another reason why Charles Schulz was a genius...
http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/peanuts/archive/
Or if clicking after today, Saturday 6/12/04 in the archives. Good old Sparky, even if, like Michael, he tantalizes with talk of wolverines but no actual depiction.
|
mouse Sat Jun 12 16:57:24 2004
Re: Another reason why Charles Schulz was a genius
> http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/peanuts/archive/
> Or if clicking after today, Saturday 6/12/04 in the archives. Good old
> Sparky, even if, like Michael, he tantalizes with talk of wolverines but
> no actual depiction.
ah, good, you saw it! i was going to post the link myself, but you are up ahead of me.
it does give one such a charming image - i can just imagine what one looks like, standing there peering earnestly into the distance.
and, as you point out, imagine it i must...
|
Michael Sun Jul 4 18:19:48 2004
Re: Another reason why Charles Schulz was a genius
> and, as you point out, imagine it i must...
That's the *point* of wolverines, people! AAAAAAAUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!
|
Emsworth the Inquisitive Sun Jul 4 19:15:51 2004
Re: Another reason why Charles Schulz was a genius
> That's the *point* of wolverines, people!
> AAAAAAAUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!
Then why did you *ever* even once briefly promise to render them, HMMMMMMM?
|
Michael Sun Jul 4 20:10:42 2004
Re: Another reason why Charles Schulz was a genius
> Then why did you *ever* even once briefly promise to render them,
> HMMMMMMM?
Well, as is clear to the most casual of observers, the repeated dangling of their potential portrayal before the reader simply accentuates their absence in the concrete. The parallel with works such as _Waiting with Godot_ is, of course, too obvious to belabor. The quintessential abstractness of the Toonbots wolverines was already foreshadowed by their original appearance in the Boxjam stalking essay: they were never actually *seen* or *described*, but simply intuited from the mayhem they caused. As such, they are far, far more interesting than any actual extant wolverines. They are Schroedinger's Wolverine personified, existing in a sort of uncollapsed quantum state, whence they can shed a beatific light on the humdrum mundanity of our classical existence.
|
Emsworth Sun Jul 4 22:43:09 2004
Re: Another reason why Charles Schulz was a genius
> Well, as is clear to the most casual of observers, the repeated dangling
> of their potential portrayal before the reader simply accentuates their
> absence in the concrete. The parallel with works such as _Waiting with
> Godot_ is, of course, too obvious to belabor. The quintessential
> abstractness of the Toonbots wolverines was already foreshadowed by their
> original appearance in the Boxjam stalking essay: they were never actually
> *seen* or *described*, but simply intuited from the mayhem they caused. As
> such, they are far, far more interesting than any actual extant
> wolverines. They are Schroedinger's Wolverine personified, existing in a
> sort of uncollapsed quantum state, whence they can shed a beatific light
> on the humdrum mundanity of our classical existence.
In other words, you gave up trying when it proved to difficult (remember the early renderings of wolverines eith eyes and teeth? Surely that suggests some sort of attempt at visualization, however minimal) and am now trying to cover your tracks. Hey, if it works for Marvel comics....
Great to hear from you again, though. Anything you want me to tell Gooey-gar and Lee when/if mouse and I are able to see them at the Con? (Already promised to call Lee a girl for gopher).
|
Emsworth Sun Jul 4 22:44:01 2004
Correction
"too difficult"
I blame physical exhaustion, cares of existence, gastrid trouble, and Lou Scheimer for that. Just because.
|
Michael Sun Jul 4 22:54:52 2004
Re: Another reason why Charles Schulz was a genius
> (remember
> the early renderings of wolverines eith eyes and teeth? Surely that
> suggests some sort of attempt at visualization, however minimal)
That wasn't canon. And the wolverines *are* more effective when offstage. I don't make this stuff up -- it just happens. The wolverines were simply ... better offstage, is all. I could always have gotten a random wolverine picture, like I did for the spider or the nose in Damonk's horrible crossover, but it just didn't work for me.
> (Already promised to call Lee a girl for gopher).
Tell'im the same from me.
|
Michael Sun Jul 4 23:54:36 2004
Re: Another reason why Charles Schulz was a genius
> but it just didn't work for me.
But yes, during that phase when I was attempting to visualize minimal geometrical figures for different personages -- yourself and mouse included, and Tirdun -- I did attempt the wolverines. It just never worked out to actually put them in (and it was fun to promise them repeatedly; I never saw a running gag I didn't like).
|
Emsworth Mon Jul 5 18:16:06 2004
Re: Another reason why Charles Schulz was a genius
> But yes, during that phase when I was attempting to visualize minimal
> geometrical figures for different personages -- yourself and mouse
> included, and Tirdun -- I did attempt the wolverines. It just never worked
> out to actually put them in (and it was fun to promise them repeatedly; I
> never saw a running gag I didn't like).
From Sep. 19, 2001: " > I *will*, eventually, put wolverines in."
Now we know the expiration date on eventually. It was the promises both within the forum and the strip which were so manipulative. Then again, with that talent for delaying something and yet keeping readers half expecting it, forget Marvel- you should be writing Mary Worth. (Probably pays a lot more than programming and so forth, but the agonies are probably deep).
|
|
