Thanks for the link – I have to say that if someone told me I’d see Little Lulu drawn by Daniel Clowes…

Now THERE’S a story I’m not sure I’d like to read! And I say that as a huge Clowes fan…

One more thing, Mark (if you’re following this thread ) or anyone else, for that matter. I’ve never read anyone comment (although a thesis could be written about this) about the girls bending over and showing their frilly undies in every story. Clearly this had no sexual overtone at the time – it shows up in some Golden Books that I have as well. It was just considered “cute” I guess. Stanley really took it to extremes, however, with Lulu also being put into situations where’s she’s changing her clothes, etc. None of this registers in the slightest with my son, and I obviosuly don’t call attention to it, but in today’s hypersexualized times, it’s one more sign that things were different then. Or where they? Henry Darger’s stuff was totally influenced by this.

Now with regards to Stanley, he obviously was plugged into a kid’s head – he has Tubby disrobing all the time too – I think he knew that kids have a fascination with seeing kids in the bathtub, or having someone steal their clothes at the lake.

I could go on and on about Lulu – like what’s with the adults in the foreground in so many of the pictures of the kids when they’re in town? For no reason he’ll just put a passing grownup smiling to themselves passing by…again, I think it’s kind of wonderful kid’s eye view of the world – grownups are like scenery or something.

Finally, I wish someone would look at how this had to have influenced Peanuts. From what I know Schultz never mentioned Stanley as an influence, but it seems so clearly a step in that direction. But truthfully, as much as I love peanuts (I grew up on it) I find these characters far more complex than the one dimensional Lucy and Linus, etc.

The one thing worse than Nancy.

I would especially recommend the Dark Horse Little Lulu volumes 19-27 and the Little Lulu’s Pal Tubby volumes because they’re in color, and include the comic book covers.

The Drawn and Quarterly volumes are lovingly compiled and designed, but it irks me that the covers aren’t included. Creators put a lot of thought and effort in these covers because they greatly affect sales; they were intended to be part of the reading experience, and they’re usually the most beautiful artwork done for each issue.

It looks like the Fantagraphics folks are doing everything right on the Carl Barks library, including coloring, paper, placement (complete issues, in chronological order) and pricing. And they’ve personally assured me that these books will include covers!

Now we have to get a publisher to reprint the O’Toole/Wiseman Dennis the Menace comic books in the same way, and the essentials of the Golden Age of Kids’ Comic Book re-printings will be complete!

I might be in the minority, but I actually prefer Irving Tripp’s wispier inking than Stanley’s broader brush. But I am nuts about these – and also the sociological change in our society – that kids would be playing outside by themselves, or sent to the store, or no one thought anything about leaving kids alone.

READ THESE. They are wonderful!

Lulu was often featured in very imaginative stories. I particularly remember one in which it snowed so much that when she went outside her whole world was white. For some reason I thought that was -really- funny (the town I grew up in got up to 10 feet each winter).

I have to agree that they’re highly literate, and therefore it only follows that both Marge’s sons became English (meh, Lit, same thing) professors.