A Fishy Deal

Cidu Bill on Jul 17th 2017

Mitch4: A CIDU inasmuch as I don’t entirely get the joke. But sent in as a matter of interest for a secondary puzzle — is that caption dealing in a cartooning in-joke, using the names of Guy and Rodd?

bleachers170711.gif

Filed in Bill Bickel, CIDU, In the Bleachers, Steve Moore, comic strips, comics, humor | 14 responses so far

14 Responses to “A Fishy Deal”

  1. Ron Jul 17th 2017 at 12:10 am 1

    Play on words. Imagine humans: kidnappers will exchange hostage for money,
    but no rods (guns) to be present.

    Fish do the same kind of exchange but no rods (fishing type rods) present.

  2. Boise Ed Jul 17th 2017 at 01:57 am 2

    What Ron said.

    Mitch4, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodd lists several people named Rodd, none of them ichthyologists or cartoonists, so I’m at sea here.

  3. James Pollock Jul 17th 2017 at 02:36 am 3

    Rods are to fish what guns are to people. So, in setting up a meet, where people would demand “no guns”, fish would demand “no rods”.

  4. Kilby Jul 17th 2017 at 03:47 am 4

    @ Boise Ed (2) - Mitch4 is referring to Brevity, which was formerly by “Guy (Endore-Kaiser) and Rodd (Perry)”, but only the italicized part appeared as their signature.

  5. Carl Jul 17th 2017 at 05:27 am 5

    Formerly by Guy and Rodd? [checks] Wow, I guess it has been several years since I looked at that strip. Interesting

  6. Kilby Jul 17th 2017 at 07:35 am 6

    @ Carl (5) - I’ve never followed the comic, but I was surprised to learn that it was about five years ago, because I thought “Guy & Rodd” was on all of the panels that I’ve seen here (rechecking now, it appears to be a 50:50 mix). The change happened sometime during 2012, the panel dated 1-Jul-2012 credits all three authors, but by 1-Jan-2013 the signature is just “Dan”.

    P.S. The “official” link listed by that Wikipedia page @4 does not work. I have no idea where Dan’s new site is supposed to be.

  7. Ian D Osmond Jul 17th 2017 at 08:07 am 7

    Yep, I think this is based on the 1950s slang “rod” for “gun”.

    I don’t know if that was ACTUAL 1950s slang, or just on TV and in books.

  8. mitch4 Jul 17th 2017 at 09:23 am 8

    Thanks for the research and opinions. I guess the allusion is not intended.

  9. mitch4 Jul 17th 2017 at 09:24 am 9

    Ian, for a somewhat related bit of supposed underworld slang, see the account of gunsel at http://www.worldwidewords.org/topicalwords/tw-gun1.htm . Quinion is cautious about the standard story of how Hammett snuck it past an up-tight editor; but accepts that the “gunman” sense seems to have originated with Hammett or other tough-guy authors in 1929 or the early 30s.

  10. Danny Boy (London Derrière) Jul 17th 2017 at 11:38 pm 10

    Maybe people disagree with this, or are just being polite, but… There was a widespread feeling that Brevity lost something when Guy and Rodd turned it over to Dan.

  11. Kilby Jul 18th 2017 at 05:27 am 11

    @ Danny Boy (10) - I cannot think of a single comic strip that was ever improved or even managed to mantain the same quality after being legated to a new artist. Strips should be retired and/or buried with their creators, as exemplified by Watterson and Schulz, and as underscored by Kelly and Bushmuller.

    P.S. Two obvious exceptions would be Hart and Batuik, whose strips could just as well have been retired before their respective creator.

  12. DemetriosX Jul 18th 2017 at 09:58 am 12

    @Kilby (11): Cory Pandolph kept The Elderberries on about the same level when he took over. The same could probably be said for the guys who took over Adam and Rose is Rose. But all three could just as easily have been retired with no great loss. However, I will argue that Francesco Marciuliano and his work on Sally Forth is the exception that proves the rule. He’s made that strip his own over the last almost 20 years and it’s wonderful.

  13. larK Jul 18th 2017 at 10:50 am 13

    I would second Sally Forth — my sister and I used to ridicule the bad art and pointless tired cliché-i-ness of the original strip (right down to the stupid name); it was the epitome of bad to us back in the late 80s, early 90s. The original guy then hired someone to do the art, and it improved, since it was impossible to get worse, but people actually complained and the poor new guy had to go and emulate the crap style of the original guy who couldn’t draw. (I think that was at least one artist ago.) Then Marciuliano took over, and though it took a while for us to notice , fortified in our high towers of distain, but he actually made something of the strip and we had to acknowledge that this guy was actually funny. The art was allowed to slowly improve, too.

    I never noticed enough about Adam to comment, but I disagree about Rose is Rose — I wasn’t a fan of the original, but it was quirky and original enough that I gave it grudging respect; then that tired hack who did the “They’ll Get You Every Time” took over the art work, and it looks like it comes out of a machine, and the stories are too in your face about the quirkiness, each one treated as if it’s a well-known trope, like you’re not only supposed to understand it, but have accepted it as a normal gag setup thing, like Lucy pulling the football; in the original, part of what made it quirky was the unconventionalness of the various bits — you never quite understood them, and the author was kind of pulling you along, maybe reluctantly, to see just what he was on about, and it was fresh and unexpected. The author knew he had to convince you, so he never took it for granted. Now it’s all just “this is trope # 16 — HAHAHAHA!”

  14. James Pollock Jul 18th 2017 at 02:46 pm 14

    “I cannot think of a single comic strip that was ever improved or even managed to mantain the same quality after being legated to a new artist.”

    If you expand from comic strips to other types of comics, a good many stellar examples appear. John Romita drew a better Spider-Man. Carl Barks is out there, too.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply