Slide Over, Zombies: Skeletons are Coming!

Lots of people fear zombies, and they've really developed quite the 'chic' persona in certain hipster circles. The slow-walking, steadfast gait of a mindless drone has garnered up all sorts of symbolic meaning in our modern culture. As far as a frightening beast, however, the zombie must finally pass off its crown of terror to a stalwart young contender: the skeleton.
Much of the zombies' allure comes from its mystique. Bits of flesh, chunked up across the face, reveal faint glimpses of the life which once inhabited this hollow shell. The burnt embers of a life somehow make the zombie out to be somewhat of a tragic figure; a being who never asked to parlay this grotesque lot in life. Not so with the skeleton.
This is not to imply that the skeleton sought out its position. Nothing could be further than the truth (except in one remarkable instance), but the fact remains that absolutely no glimmer of life exists within those brittle, dry bones. The skeleton is, quite literally, a cold, heartless being who perennially sports the creepiest grimace of mankind's history. Also, skeletons quite often employ the use of swords (more specifically, scimitars), giving them an added bonus during melee rounds.
The purpose of these words is not to condemn the zombie, nor to strip it of its hallowed status amongst true nerds and socially bereft individuals. Rather, it is to promote awareness of the creepiness which lay inherently deep within each skeleton. At the very least, I hope to stimulate debate in the academic world upon this very subject.

Dick Tracy Could Kick His Fucking Ass

I am reading a collection of "Jim Hardy" strips, which originally ran in the 1930s. They were created by Dick Moores, which is really a hell of a moniker to get stuck with. Just try typing that one into Google images.
Moores was an assistant of Chester Gould during the 1930s, before launching his solo career. He also did the lettering, which is as great here as it is on the Dick Tracy dailies. Before reading this collection, I assumed it would be a lamer version of Dick Tracy, but that didn't turn out to be the case.
I'm not trying to imply that it was actually good, because it's really just serviceable. The artwork is very similar to Gould's, but much more cartoony. The first major storyline was really slow-paced, and basically involved the entire citizenry of a small town getting duped by some slick out-of-towner. Don't worry; Hardy scopes him out. There's really not much crime, which (for some reason) I was led to believe was the case. The genre switch didn't really phase me, but it was a little too melodramatic for my tastes. And I love Gasoline Alley.
Still and all, it's a decent comic. Compared to Gould, Caniff, Crane, or Moseley (yeah, I said it), it simply pales. Good read for the shitbox, though. After all that, I liked it much better than Joe Palooka. Way better, in fact. I believe you can get it from this publisher.

Don't Buy Watchmen!!

I remember reading, a long time ago, that one of the reasons Alan Moore hates DC Comics is because of their treatment towards him during the initial publication of Watchmen. At the time, Moore had worked for DC on Saga of the Swamp Thing, some mainstream super-hero stuff, and a few odd fill-ins here and there. He knew how the game was played, I would assume. For Watchmen, he must have had a different game plan in mind.
Basically, DC put a clause into the contract that said, "When Watchmen goes out of print, the copyright reverts back to Alan Moore" (and maybe Dave Gibbons, too). Some might say that no one could have predicted how long Watchmen would remain "in print," but it's also unclear what exactly would constitute "out of print," as well. Anyway, to Moore's (presumably) sedated mind, it sounded like a fair enough shake.
Flash forward to 20 years, and Watchmen is probably the most massively-distributed Western comic of all time. Unless you count that first issue of McFarlane's "Spider-Man." It seems like everyone bought that thing. Anyway, the point is, if no one buys Watchmen, the rights will be reverted back to the creators. Simple enough, right? So don't buy Watchmen. And tell everyone you know not to buy Watchmen, either. Maybe the chain reaction will undo a creative injustice. Plus, you can always get Watchmen from the library, a friend's house, or even through an online torrent site. If you're really desperate, email me and I'll help you find a copy. Just don't buy it.

Put Your Head Inside the Puppet Hand

Marvel Comics recently announced that they will sell "subscriptions" to their back-catalog online. The basic gist is that you pay ten bucks per month, or a discounted $60 per year, and you can read a bunch of their old comic books (from the Silver age up to six months ago) online from their server.
The nerdroar seems to be split on this issue. I have read some people complaining that you cannot download the comics; only read them from the site. In fact, I've read a bunch of people bitching about a bunch of stuff. What I have not read is how royalties will be dispersed for the artists and writers.
I am not sure if the creators are being compensated at all. If they are completely bypassing the creators, they sure as fuck picked a horrible time to launch this. All of Hollywood is in an uproar over pretty much the same issue. The current Writers Guild of America strike is about royalties towards online distribution of their materials (along with DVD and other product royalties). Is Marvel pretty much doing the same thing with their comics now?
A few months ago on the Comic Book Haters podcast, we discussed the relevance of torrented distribution of comic books. I was pretty vocal in support of them, and my main argument was that old comics should be up for grabs to anyone that wants to read them. Mind you, I said 'read.' Not 'own.' I look at online distribution like a library. I know a lot of people would disagree with this statement, but that's just how I feel.
I feel differently about Marvel. They're charging people, and making money off of it. Are the creators? If you can point me towards some proof that they are, I would rest easier. Lots of people will be using this service instead of buying trade paperbacks and collections.
Joe Quesada made a statement to the effect of this being the "Legal" way to obtain these comics, taking a not-too-subtle jab at torrented comics. I noticed he didn't say 'ethical.' Just 'legal.'

Gasoline Alley

Well, I can't help it. I am really enjoying the most recent collection of "Gasoline Alley," titled "Walt and Skeezix" for copyright issues. 'Most Recent' is a pretty subjective term, since the strips contained within were first printed in 1925. The storyline revolves around Walt's impending marriage to Ms. Blossom, and the cold-hearted Mme. Octave's never-ending attempts to snatch Skeezix away for good.
These are some slow paced strips. I mean really, really slow paced. One strip was just a close-up of Skeezix's head repeated (more or less) over the four panels. It was like some Warhol painting, but it had some kind of narration going across the top of it. I don't remember exactly what it said, but I seem to believe it was a third-person voiceover that was commenting on something Skeezix may have been thinking, though we'll never know.
Other strips basically revolve around that fat fucking manchild, Walt, walking down the road, or pretty much just lousing about and talking to himself. Though this might sound derogatory, I really do enjoy this strip, and the pacing is actually it's main appeal. Although not much happens, these characters' entire lives continue to march on. Skeezix (who was found on Walt's doorstep as an infant) continues to grow day by day. When a year passes, he is a year older. It's interesting to read nowadays, but I'm sure the effect was much different if it was seen to unfold day by day, rather than digesting two years' worth over a few weeks.