Over at Comic-Con International 2009, Fantagraphics Books has announced that they will soon re-release the complete run of the Ernie Bushmiller-penned (and Joe Brainard-beloved) comic strip Nancy.
One wonders if Fantagraphics kept tabs on the resurgent discussion of Nancy that came about through Siglio Press’s re-issue of Brainard’s Nancy work last fall. Jordan Davis wrote an excellent piece about the book last September–a great mix of scholarship, biography, and art history that touches on both New York Schools, pop, queer theory, and John Cage. I heartily recommend anyone who hasn’t yet go on ahead and take a click.
Re-reading it, I had a wave of nostalgia for a time I never lived through (common occurrence), and then a bout of curmudgeonly harumphing about how terrible newspaper comics are now (Get Fuzzy just doesn’t do it for me). I wonder if, more than internet ad sales and blographers, the decline of newspapers is directly related to the decline of good newspaper comics?
Anyways, Iain, it’s not quite my butt, but perhaps it will do for now:
Nancy is such a splendid brat. Does she need a penis?
Posted By: Miriam Levine on July 27, 2009 at 6:28 pmReport this comment
No she doesn’t.
Posted By: suzanne on July 28, 2009 at 7:20 amshe has her own
beautiful equipment.
Report this comment
SQUARE GEEK MIND BLOWS SCHOOL GIRLS
Posted By: Henriette on July 28, 2009 at 11:22 pmReport this comment
Nancy did NOT have her own beautiful equipment–at least not until Brainard “revealed” it.
Posted By: Krista on July 29, 2009 at 12:05 pmReport this comment
Harriet’s a boy’s club. Nancy with her penis fits right in I’d say.
Honestly, do you find this funny? And what’s with the dude with the orange hair, chains and pudgy hands?
Seriously, Harriet. Have you nothing better to do with your time than show us some girl’s little dick?
Posted By: Henriette on July 30, 2009 at 12:59 amReport this comment
Harriet has a lot of better things to do, Henriette, which is why Rebecca, Eileen, Joel, Annie, and Cathy have all posted about other things besides these gender-bending comics over the past few days.
It’s nice to see the works still have the capacity to ruffle feathers, though. I wonder if you could say more about why they ruffle yours so much? Though before you respond, I do highly recommend you read Jordan’s article linked to above, or perhaps David Schmader’s appreciation from The Stranger. There’s more to the art than the waggling equipment.
Posted By: Travis Nichols on July 31, 2009 at 2:19 pmReport this comment
I just got back and my partner says to me, hey, somebody’s talking to you on Harriet. So I look, and now I know I won’t sleep.
If ruffling feathers is what you find interesting, Travis, because I sure don’t see any other interest here. I also don’t see anybody else interested either. It’s not that the material is offensive, it’s the way you present it, and the context. Superior.
Too many Harriet posts are like this, all macho kitsch and glitter. You and the other guys laugh your heads off. We’re just not interested and don’t bother to come anymore.
Posted By: Henriette on August 1, 2009 at 2:12 amReport this comment
I hate laughter! And glitter!
Posted By: Robin on August 3, 2009 at 11:09 amReport this comment
No one should lose sleep over Harriet, so apologies for any whiff of confrontational superiority that may have caused such a thing (though I think I like the “macho kitsch and glitter”; in fact, I think it’s something I’ve been aiming for all my life!). Sincerely, though, I am always interested in directions/approaches/ideas for Harriet, so feel free to shoot me an email to discuss it further.
Posted By: Travis Nichols on August 3, 2009 at 3:34 pmReport this comment