HOW I LEARNED TO LOVE JIGSAW PUZZLES

Right up until a short time ago I thought that jigsaw puzzles were the dumbest form of recreation ever invented by man. I mean what is a jigsaw puzzle anyway? It's just a ripped up picture that you laboriously put together again. Who in their right mind would ever subject themselves to that unless they had a gun at their head? Well, that's what I used to think. Now, dear reader, I've learned to respect them... and so should you!

This dawned on me a few years ago when I was called for jury duty and had to report to a warehouse-sized waiting room somewhere in the arm pit of Los Angeles. For three days I waited there all day without being called. The boredom was killing me! I brought a book, a drawing pad and an mp3 player but nothing worked. The book was always the wrong book, it's no fun drawing bored people and I'd heard everything on the player a million times before. I thought I'd go nuts!

I tried to watch TV but all that was on were garbled commercials and soap operas and no one would let me change the channel. Nobody in the seats next to me would even talk. The girl beside me treated me like a masher and the old black women all around me just wanted to knit. I just had to sit there and listen to the hum of the flickering fluorescent lights while the Earth turned.

Somewhere along the line it dawned on me that I'd seen some old jigsaw puzzles on a table near the door. There were puzzles of Mount Rushmore and old 70s sitcom actors and a really sentimental one with a Huck Finn-type boy fishing with a stick and a string. I remember the title in big letters across the box: "Blessings on Thee, Barefoot Boy!"

No sooner did the thought enter my mind than I chased it out again. No, no! I couldn't bring myself to stoop so low! Anything would be better than puzzles! I spent another hour trying to sleep and make conversation with knitters and crazy people and finally I threw in the towel. OK...a puzzle! Wearily I cast a glance the table . All the puzzles were gone but one, the Barefoot Boy.

Well there was nothing for it so I listlessly stood up and slowly began to make my way to the table. I felt so stupid! After every step I had to fight down the urge to go back to my seat again. Weeeell.... after a bit I noticed a gay guy eyeing the table from across the room and he got up and started walking toward it. I figured he was just strolling for the exercise but I quickened my step just the same. As soon as I did that he began to walk faster. Then I walked faster, then he walked faster. There was no mistaking his destination now!

I ran for the table and so did he! We tore for the ratty old plastic table and he did a flying leap (I'm exaggerating here but not much) ahead of me and with a woosh of boney fingers he scooped up the puzzle before I could reach it! Aaaargh! It's painful to recall this! He gave me a smug, "So there!" look, and I had to watch while he sat down at the table and shaked the pieces out. Defeated and dejected I returned to my seat and endured two more hours of almost unbearable sensory deprivation.

So what did I learn? I learned that the humble jigsaw puzzle is a thing of beauty to those who are desperate enough to need it. I'd no sooner make fun of it than I'd make jokes about penicillin. Now I take puzzles seriously!

Um... for those who are interested here's the famous poem. My grandparents had an embroidered version of this stanza on their wall.

BAREFOOT BOY

by John Greenleaf Whittier

Blessings on thee, little man,
Barefoot boy, with cheek of tan!
With thy turned-up pantaloons,
And thy merry whistled tunes;
With thy red lip, redder still
Kissed by strawberries on the hill;
With the sunshine on thy face,
Through thy torn brim’s jaunty grace;
From my heart I give thee joy,—
I was once a barefoot boy!

Story copyright 2007 by Eddie Fitzgerald

BEFORE THEY WERE FAMOUS

Every comics fan is familiar with Krigstein's subway story (excerpt above).

Not many have seen his earlier work done in the 40s "Classics Illustrated" style (above). I used to hate this style when I saw it later in reprints. If someone told me the artist would transcend this awkward style and go on to become a significant EC artist I wouldn't have believed him.

Every body's familiar with Kutrzman's 50s work (sample above)...

...but how many have seen his earlier work (above) from 1942 and 43? Looking at the early pages who would have guessed that Kurtzman would have become the legendary stylist and creator of Mad Magazine?

BTW, isn't the "Mr. Risk" page interesting? The anatomy's off but it has guts and appeal. The background figures look like the kind of thing Kirby would draw years later. Is that a coincidence or did one of the artists influence the other?

Here's (above) some Wood from the early 60s. It's the style we're all familiar with.

Here's (above and below) Wood from the period around 1949 - 50. It's a style that none of us are familiar with. I find these pages shocking! There's not a trace of Wood's later style here! The man completely re-invented himself in the subsequent years.

The reason I posted these is to make the point that none of us should ever get discouraged if our work isn't as far along as we'd like it to be. People learn and people change. Nothing's carved in stone.

BOOK REVIEW: "THE MANIPULATED MAN"

I have a small but treasured collection of books which I call my "weird collection." they're one-of-a-kind books, sometimes from a small publishers, which contain unpopular opinions which the rest of society has never seriously considered.

One such book is "You May Smoke" which argues that cigarettes are good for you. Another is called "Hollow Earth" which claims that mastadons live in a hollow earth lit by an interior sun. Another claims to have a photograph of God and still another claims that since men cause most of the world's crimes that men should killed off in enormous numbers so that women can feel safe again. I don't agree with these opinions but I sure am glad that I bought the books. If readers are interested I'll share some of these in the coming months.

My first "weird" book is Esther Vilar's "The Manipulated Man." I bought the book in a used book store a long time ago but I think it's still in print, maybe from a small publisher. Vilar was a German doctor, and a severe critic of the feminism of her time (1972). Here's (above) a sample of her writing style.

If Vilars could see into this era she'd see a mountain of indepedent research papers by women.

After fifty women (above) turn into "indifferent heaps of human cells."

Vilars lived in the era when most women were housewives. She considered these wives (discussed above) to be contemptable parasites on their husbands. She was particularly mad about make-up and fashion which she considered childish and manipulative.

In the world of Vilars, men don't matter except as providers. We're just background to the real show which is women competing with women.

Women are only interested in other women (above) but not in a lesbian way.

According to Vilars men are socialized at an early age to be slaves to women.

As you can see (above) , Vilars' women are far from having penis envy. Actually I agree with her on this point. Where did Freud get that from anyway?

Vilars' women yawn through sex.

Speaking for myself most of the women in my life have been very interesting and also very supportive of the things I wanted to do. I wonder if Vilars modified these opinions over the years? I wonder what she's doing now?

A NIFTY ARCHITECTURE BOOK

Here are some pictures from an old architecture book that I found in the library. Sorry, I

forgot to scan the title page so I don't know the name.

Anyway I like what this guy is saying. This high-density residential street (above) is terrific. Amazingly streets like this sometimes contain a few small and unexpected shops. I guess the owners live upstairs or behind the store. The author's right; tourists love streets like this and zoning laws that prevent them from being built are silly.

I used to think commercial plazas like this (above) were a good idea. The parking lot has convenient access from the street and the "U" shaped plaza seems to invite people in.

I shed the plaza notion completely the instant I saw this picture (above) showing the way commercial properties used to look. The caption explains it all. I love the idea that people live above the shops. City dwellers should always live near shops. Shops are exciting in their own way and they remind us that we're intelligent creatures who make things and trade for things.

Thankfully this arrangement (above) is pretty common but it's worth taking a moment to appreciate it. Sidewalks on residential streets need a buffer to keep the parked cars at a distance. A strip of grass and trees does the job perfectly. I've seen a lot of new streets that don't have this and this someday we might wake up and find this kind of street has become rare.

BTW, I like trees that are moody and distinctive and which form a sort of stippled canopy over the sidewalk.

Here's another picture that caused me to change my mind the instant I saw it. I used to believe that even small town public buildings should be a showcase for new and exciting architecture. I still would like to see that if the right architect could be found, but barring the discovery of a genius I think we could do worse than build traditional structures like the one above.

Let's face it, small town bureaucrats aren't likely to pick exciting young architects like Howard Roark to build their public buildings. If they decide to build modern they'll usually end up building soulless post-modern wind traps. I choose the Greek facade (or something else traditional) as the lesser of two evils.

PHOTOS BY THE YOUNG HALSMAN

I know what you're thinking: "Why did he put up this picture of Monroe (above)? It's well done but everybody's familiar with it already!" Well yes it is familiar and that's exactly why it's worth writing about.

The picture is by Philipe Halsman. Halsman took the classic, most seen pictures of dozens of Hollywood celebrities. He knew how to flatter the subject, how to distill the essence of what they want to project to the public, and get it on film. For comparison here's a picture of Marilyn taken by somebody else (below).

What a difference! The color picture is sultry, pure and simple. The black & white Halsman begins with sultry but adds innocent, feminine and makes Monroe look young. Boy, Halsman gave his clients their money's worth! Plain old sultry just wasn't good enough!

Here (above) is Halsman's Jimmy Durante. Compare it to the picture done by someone else, below. Again, a big difference! Halsman gets across the idea that Jimmy is an entertainer, that he has a big nose and that he's a nice guy. He looks old but it doesn't seem to matter. You find yourself thinking that it's amazing that he can project so much energy at his age.

Here (above) is the other guy's picture of Durante. The smile is forced and the impression you get is of that of an old man who's to be pitied for his age.

The lesson I draw from this is that planning means everything when you take a picture. You have to know what it is that you want to emphasize and, equally important, know what you want to de-emphasize. Of course Halsman is a genius and it never hurts to have a genius behind the lens.

I thought you might like to see some of the pictures Halsman took when he was young. In those days he was interested in making bold, expressionist statements. These are great pictures and if Halsman had never done anything else he'd still be worth remembering. The amazing thing is that he went on to even greater achievement with the celebrity portraits.

Who'd have thought that a back could be so interesting? The back BTW, belongs to Winston Churchill.

I wonder who this (above) is? The picture has a great expressionist quality.

These (above) are almost surreal! Ahh! refreshed at the fountain of Halsman!

AM I JOHN'S TOADY??

No, I'm not a toady but it's funny that someone on the net called me that. What is a toady anyway? As a toady I assume it would be my job to defend the opinions of the Toady Master (John), even if I believe they're wrong, but do I do that? Not that I'm aware of.

And to whom am I supposed to defend those opinions? Can I talk directly to John's adversaries or am I supposed to talk only to the adversaries' toadies, you know...toady to toady. I don't know, it's way too complicated. Anyway, I'm not a toady. John and I disagree about too many things for that.

For one thing we disagree about Wally Wood (above). How can John not like the guy? Maybe he's down on the later Wood who was forced to draw all those Marvel comics.

And what's this about Jack Davis (above) being over-rated? By way of evidence John says Davis uses fish scales to denote ground. What's wrong with that?

John is also completely unmoved by John Sibley, the Disney animator who did the best scenes in the Goofy sports cartoons. He calls Sibley "wacky," which is Johnspeak for the silly, pointless things that clowns do. Believe me, it's not a compliment. Me, I love Sibley. (Sigh!) I don't think we'll ever agree about this.

John and I disagree about a whole bunch of things but one of the things we do agree about is that cartoons need to be funny. They need to be written funny, drawn funny and animated funny. That doesn't sound like much to ask for but you'd be amazed how difficult it is to pull off.

To do it John had to figure out a whole new way of writing stories, a new way of organizing a studio, a whole new drawing style, and when he encountered a problem getting it on TV he worked with others to co-invent Flash animation so he could put it on the net. Later on he tried to teach that drawing style to potential employees on the net and in the process created a blog that was unparalleled in the industry. You don't have to be a sycophant to admire that.

Oops! There I go sounding like a toady again! I think I'll wrap this up now so I can hunt for some flies.

REPLY TO MARLO MEEKINS

About six months ago Marlo wrote in to say that she'd identified definite differences in the male and female face. Well of course there must be differences but did she get them right? None of my anatomy books mentioned it so I had to postpone comment. Well thanks to an old, German anatomy book from the 1920s I think I'm finally ready to make an answer.

Marlo said that men have sloping foreheads more frequently than women. Compare what the book calls normal foreheads on the two subjects above. I'd say her belief is confirmed!

Marlo also said that men have deeper-set eyes. Compare the two sets of eyes immediately above. Once again, Marlo's belief is confirmed!

She also claimed that men were more likely to have downward-facing noses. Hmmm...I'd say suspicion confirmed!

Marlo also said that men were more likely to have weak chins than women. Unfortunately I don't have pictures that address this so for the time being I'll have to mark this one unconfirmed!

It's off-topic but I couldn't resist scanning a few extra pictures showing different kinds of male chin. Here (above and below) are both bold and weak examples.

Here's (above) a "Swingblade" chin.

Good Grief! I don't know what these eyes (above and below) are supposed to show but they certainly look psychopathic!

Sheeesh! If someone ever stares at you like this (above) turn the other way and run!

This book is terrific! It's even better than Everard's, though it wasn't intended for artists and isn't as comprehensive. It really demonstrates that there's another , more fun way to present human anatomy.