skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Old Wottzizname
I really have been wanting to post more often, here on Whirled of Kelly, but between having the horrible crud and having horrible deadlines, I'm lucky to be able to do the Sunday, Kelly Sunday thing. Give me a little more time and I'll make it worth your patience.
'Scuse me. I just LOL'd.
ReplyDeleteYAY! How many modern comix can offer THAT?
ReplyDeleteLove this blog. I'll stick with you even if you only post once a month.
ReplyDeleteCan't wait for the fantagraphics pogo book, which they said will now be coming out Fall '11.
While successfully weathering Friday, the thirteenth (which happened last Thursday this month) by hiding under my bed, I could not help wondering, why there seems to exist not a single sunday-page dedicated to my grandpa's favorite day...
ReplyDeleteSon of Son of Churchy
I hope you are both getting over the crud and rising above your work demanding deadlines.
ReplyDeleteAnd with that, an inquiry, if I may. I discover via your archive only one instance of Chug Chug Curtis appearing, in an advertisement to encourage comic magazine subscriptions. Have you given us some Pogo episodes in which he appears, even though not indicated in terms of your "labels" list? If not, this is a request that you keep an eye out for him...and if he is in a book collection or two that you know about, I'd appreciate your tips to search him out.
Again, all the best to you.
--Martin Fass
Strugglingwriter—I DO appreciate your loyalty!
ReplyDeleteSon of Son of Churchy—I once read that Kelly considered Sunday strips to be the domain of children, hence rarely treading on dangerous grounds, such as politics and (based on your observation) superstitions.
Martin— I love Chug Chug, and cannot recall a single instance of him being in any of the Sunday strips of the 60s or 70s. He was a regular in the dailies of the 50s and some 60s. This year I'm going to create profiles and tributes for characters in the swamp, and you can be sure I'll put Chug Chug toward the front of the poorade.
Many thanks to you, Thomas!
ReplyDelete--Martin