I gotta get me one of those hills.
10 Comments
Posts Tagged Lowell
376 results.
I won’t say that golf is totally counter-intuitive… But there’s an awful lot of stuff to learn if you want to play, and not all of it makes sense on the surface.
Really, even the concept is a little tricky. “Get the ball into that little hole, dozens of yards away? Why don’t I just plunk the first six or seven into that handy lake? That’s what they seem to want to do anyhow.”
See how hard I work, tying stories together for you guys?
I like the linework in this comic.
There are a lot of ways the lines come out, depending on a lot of stuff.
When the characters are the ones we see all the time, and the action is close up, and there’s no reason to noodle around, the linework is fat and clean.
When I have more random characters, doing something that doesn’t come up much… I can’t help but noodle around. The linework is choppier, more random… but somehow more expressive.
I like that.
Everything’s funnier with “Dr.” in front of it.
Did you ever listen to the comedy albums that made Bob Newhart famous? He had this thing where he’d do half a conversation, and your brain sort of filled in whatever else was needed.
You might also have wondered why I didn’t weigh in so much when everyone was guessing who called Hubris right before lunch. I figured you needed your three guesses.
Sometimes it’s easiest to draw noise without any sort of written sounds. Weird.
The cartoons are awfully wordy the last couple of days.
I remember being a kid and reading the newspaper comic strips every day. Not all of them. Doonesbury was one I typically didn’t read because it had too many words. I guess if I wasn’t spoiled for choice, I’d have read it no matter what. Back then, I read anything that had a cartoon aspect to it. Ernie Ball Strings & Things catalogs had a cartoon feature in them of an Eagle and his son explaining the guitar business. I didn’t know diddly about guitars and stuff, but by golly, I read and re-read that stuff ’cause it was well-drawn cartoons.
I saw the Ernie Ball material at my dad’s store over the summer holidays when I was too young to be left on my own, both parents were working and anyone else who could look after my brother and me were otherwise occupied. That’s also where I first saw a Doonesbury treasury book. Big thick book full of comic strips. Amazing. One of the guitar teachers had brought it in. I ignored it as long as I could but after a certain point, it was a book full of comic strips. It had to be read, and I had a summer in a store full of stuff I didn’t know diddly about.
And that’s how I lost my fear of “too-wordy” comic strips. The book was the one where, lost in the midst of all the other cartoons, an American couple adopts a Vietnamese baby, who cries about the black specks in her oatmeal ’til it’s pointed out that they’re just raisins. Doonesbury-style, she looks back into the bowl thinking, “I thought that was shrapnel.” The baby’s name was Kim. I’m convinced that she eventually became the Kim that Mike Doonesbury married and started the Mikim company with. That comic strip has been telling stories for a long, long time.
Makes Hubris’ six years and piddly few words seem like a drop in the ol’ bucket.
“Why” is sometimes a question that can shorten the heck out of a conversation. I mean, some of the videos on those old TV shows that were just collections of videos… (and the ones on Facebook now) are things you can’t question if you don’t want the magic taken away. For instance, I watched a video collage (is that what you call those? The ones that have a series of little videos strung together into one larger, funnier video) the other day of people doing face plants in various places.
One of the face plants was a woman going down an escalator and suddenly, whump, she goes down and scatters herself badly by the time she gets to the bottom of the moving stairs. Fine. But then you ask “Why”.
As in, “Why was there someone video-ing this woman (from behind) going down what is apparently an airport escalator?” It’s not security video. There’s no one else in frame. There’s nothing especially engaging about the woman one way or the other. But the video shows us this spectacular stumble and splatter… halfway down the escalator. Why, when the first half of the escalator ride was so uneventful, would someone continue video-ing this person… Unless she and the videographer had agreed beforehand that she would do something interesting on the ride down?
So here WE are with Lowell confronting the question, “Why”.
Let’s see if he can prove the videographer to be essential to the process.
