The Art of the Funnies The Art of the Comic Book Children of the Yellow Kid Accidental Ambassador Gordo Milton Caniff Comversations
NEW!             Sold Out
Don't Forget These Great Books for Sale By R.C. Harvey!

Welcome to the webbed and wired edition of R&R, aristotle. We’ll be doing the same sort of song and dance here as we do in print: reviewing the latest comics and cartoon-related books and ranting about trends and abuses and unfathomable foolishnesses. Each installment will stay here for about four weeks, with a new one coming in just about every other week or so. If you don’t have the time to ponder every punctuation mark in this deathless prose and merely want to see what might be there that would interest you, we suggest you scroll down the page looking for the bold-face type that heralds the notables who reside herein this week. So here we go with Opus 418a and reprise of Opus 418 and of Opus 417—:

 

 

Opus 418a: The Pulitzer Dereliction of Duty: No Prize for Editoons This Year (June 15, 2021).

 

Opus 418: The Month’s Editoons, Crumb on Women and Trump & M. Thomas Inge’s Creation of Scholarly Interest In Comics (May 26, 2021).

 

Opus 417: The Chauvin Verdict, Listing This Year’s 147 Mass Killings, Stereotyping and Cartoon Shorthand, Timm’s Big Tease & Tempest Storm Obit (May 11, 2021).

 

 

 

Opus 418a (through June 14, 2021). The Pulitzer Prize committee failed to award a Prize to editorial cartooning this year. And we rant about it. And this opus is all rant, kimo sabe. And it begins right after our customary reminder: don’t forget to activate the “Bathroom Button” by clicking on the “print friendly version” so you can print off a copy of just this installment for reading later, at your leisure while enthroned. Without further adieu, then, here we go—:

 

 

 

NO PRIZE

No Pulitzer Prize was awarded in the editorial cartoon category this year. Why not? It’s not because there are no editorial cartoonists. It’s not because no editorial cartoons were submitted to the Pulitzers.

            The Pulitzers just didn’t award editorial cartooning this year. No Prize. Nada.

            What the fuck?

            Or, as another less enraged observer said: “If there's any doubt remaining that the NY media elite have declared war on editorial cartooning, it's gone.”

            The “NY media elite” is a shot at the Pulitzer Board, which is based at Columbia University in New York City.

            Other comments/reactions were similarly edgy. Someone said the Pulitzer People ought to return the entry fee paid by all who entered this category. Someone else said: “Having ‘no award’ this year is offensive and outlandish, given the amount of outstanding editorial cartooning done in 2020.”

            I agree.

            Someone else observed that all three finalists in the Editorial Cartooning category are minorities: Latinx, Native American, and Jewish. “This is what systemic racism looks like.”

            But most agree that reaction is going too far.

            Instead, what we’re faced with is colossal overweening arrogance on the part of the Pulitzer Board.

            Here’s how the selection process supposedly “works.” A selection committee (called judges or jurors) screens all the submitted editoons. Editoonists submit portfolios of 15-20 editoons; this year, it was 15. And they pay an entry fee of $75.

            The selection committee then determines the three best portfolios and sends to the Pulitzer Board these three “finalists” from whom the Board is supposed to pick the winner.

            That’s how it’s supposed to work. And this year, everything worked until it became the Board’s turn. Then they screwed us all.

            This year, the Board ignored the recommendations inherent in the selection committee’s list of finalists and chose, instead, not to name a winner at all. Period.

            This isn’t the first time the Pulitzers have awarded “no prize.” For editooning in the years 1922, 1935, 1959, 1964, 1972 and, now, 2020, No Prize was awarded. It’s been 40 years since the Pulitizers came up empty the last time.

            A statement at the website of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists (AAEC) was, considering the provocation, mild: “In a stunning and unexpected rejection, the Pulitzer Prize committee decided not to give the award for editorial cartooning this year, in spite of three exceptional finalists being named.”

            The finalists were—:

            Lalo Alcaraz of Andrews McMeel Syndicate for cartoons drawn from an unabashedly specific Latino point of view that target the hearts and consciences of Americans.

            Ken Fisher, drawing as Ruben Bolling, for an editorial feature entitled Tom the Dancing Bug, part of Andrews McMeel Syndicate, for an effective example of the alternative cartooning form that uses multiple panels to create a satirical take on politocal issues.

            Marty Two Bulls Sr., freelance cartoonist, for innovative and insightful cartoons that offer a Native American perspective on news events.

 

 

THE PANEL OF JUDGES for this year’s Pulitzer selection consisted of two Pulitzer Prize-winning Cartoonists, two Editorial Page Editors, and a Curator of Comics. This was arguably one of the most qualified juries in years, putting in a lot of time and effort for very little or no compensation to winnow the entries down to three excellent choices for the Board to pick from. Their work, too, was snubbed.

            The judges—:

            Nancy Ancrun, Editorial Page Editor, Miami Herald

            David Mastio, Deputy Editorial Page Editor, USA Today

            Karen L. Green, Curator, Comics and Cartoons, Columbia University

            Jack Ohman, Editoonist, Sacramento Bee

            Signe Wilkinson, Editoonist, Philadelphia papers

 

Juror Wilkinson expressed her thoughts about the three only getting participation ribbons (barely concealing her sacrasm):

            “Faced with 3 superb, uniquely talented cartoonists to choose from, the Pulitzer Prize Board probably just couldn’t bring themselves to decide among them.” S

            The AAEC issued a statement (in italics)—:      

 

The Association of American Editorial Cartoonists strongly disagrees with the decision by the Pulitzer Board to award no Pulitzer Prize in Editorial Cartooning for 2020. We are mystified by the pointed rejection of talented Finalists as well as the many other artists who have been creating powerful work in these most eventful and challenging of times.

            The medium of editorial cartooning has been evolving for many years now, yet the Pulitzer Board remains extremely traditional and narrow-minded in its tastes, apparently uncomfortable with contemporary trends in opinion cartooning and comic art. Last year the Board discarded the jurors’ choices and selected its own winner; this year represents a new low in this trend of insularity and institutional hubris.

            It is notable that the three Finalists chosen for 2021 were of Jewish, Latinx, and Native American backgrounds, yet this is the first time in 48 years that the Board has chosen not to issue an award. No woman has won in twenty years, and there has been only one female Finalist during those two decades.

            As this has been a tremendously difficult time economically for our profession, the AAEC would like to request a return of the entry fees for those who submitted. We would also urge radical structural reform of the award to evaluate modern opinion cartoons by 21st century standards.

            Signed, Jen Sorensen, President of the AAEC

            AAEC Board of Directors: Kevin Siers, Liza Donnelly, Ed Hall, Tim Campbell, Gretchen Koch, Monte Wolverton

 

            And here, from attorney Roslyn A Mazer—:

            “The AAEC statement is pitch perfect. As the lawyer who represented AAEC in Hustler Magazine v Falwell— the US Supreme Court case that saved satire for cartoonists— I cannot help but point out this profound irony: we fought like hell to persuade the most conservative Rehnquist Court to reverse a lower court ruling in favor of Jerry Falwell, who had recovered $200,000 for ‘emotional distress’ injury from a caricature that depicted him as a serial lecher, including with his mother. The decision was unanimous because Rehnquist, Scalia and others were persuaded that satire is part of the DNA of a thriving democracy and therefore required maximum protection under the First Amendment. Yet, 33 years later, with democracy threatened here and around the world, the Pulitzer Poobahs cannot be bothered to award a winner???”

 

 

EDITOONIST CLAY JONES wrote at length his reactions to the No Prize Pulitzers. Here it is, from here to the end—:

 

 

Yesterday [Friday, June 11], the Pulitzer Prize Board announced the winners for what they perceived to be the best journalism from print and digital news outlets in 2020. This is a day journalists sit on the edge of their seats for in great anticipation. This year, the announcement was delayed until June when it’s usually done in April. So, the anxiety for journalists is intensified and prolonged. The journalists waiting for this include political cartoonists.

            After much waiting and anticipation, the Pulitzer Prize Board slapped the entire profession of political cartooning in the face. Even for those cartoonists who didn’t enter, slappity slap slap. No prize for you. Can we have our entry fees returned? I mean, we entered because you gave us the impression there would be a winner. Even the Soup Nazi gave George Costanza a refund.

            Yesterday, the Pulitzer people refused to give their annual award to a political cartoonist. Why? We don’t know. Some cartoonists believe it was racist because the three finalists consisted of a Native American, a Latino, and a Jew. But, being that these are journalism awards, let’s use journalism ethics and not make accusations where there is no proof or evidence. Besides, the Pulitzers give out lots of awards to minorities. There are probably minorities on the committees. Are you going to argue there are no Jews at the New York Times? So, colleagues, let that one go unless you have proof. Let’s not prove the Pulitzers right by not using journalism ethics, mkay?

            Another cartoonist believes it’s because all three finalists were “alternative” cartoonists, as in, not traditional daily cartoonists. Yeah, I don’t know. Again, it’s an assumption.

            The three finalists are Marty Two Bulls, Ken Fisher (who draws as Ruben Bolling and creates Tom the Dancing Bug), and Lalo Alcaraz. Lalo was a finalist last year too, so maybe if it was an actual tie this year the judges couldn’t choose from, then maybe they should have given it to the guy who was exceptional enough to be a finalist two years in a row. But that’s just me and I am a little biased because Lalo is a friend, though I honestly believe his work is amazeballs. He does a lot of cartoons that make me say, “I wish I had thought of that.”

            What also hurts is that the Pulitzers created a special citation, not from any categories, to hand out to non-journalist Darnella Frazier [the teenager who recorded the infamous video showing George Floyd's murder at the hands of Minneapolis police].  Sure, she deserves a special citation, but the Pulitzers created a new award while not giving one in another category. Maybe that’s how they decided to pay Ms. Frazier the prize money, by taking it from cartoonists.

            There is outrage all over social media over this slap in the face. Former Pulitzer Prize winner Ann Telnaes has expressed outrage over this. The Association of American Editorial Cartoonists has released a statement. There is a great write-up of this at the Daily Cartoonist by Mike Peterson. And now, I have chimed in. I put off drawing for a day a cartoon on Trump’s spying on political enemies for this. Let’s strike while the iron is hot.

            Yesterday, after I made a few tweets about this (and my joke is lifted directly from one of my tweets), one of my cynical detractors tweeted at me, “Tell us where the bad Pulitzer Prizes hurt you.” The thing is, they didn’t hurt me. They didn’t hurt me because it’s not about me.

 

 

THE DAY BEFORE THE ANNOUNCEMENT, one of my colleagues wrote several comments on another colleague’s Facebook post about the award. The original poster was writing about how the prize was important but then again, not so much. He was critical of it. The guy who replied informed everyone that he did not enter because he never wins. In fact, he was going to stop entering another contest, the Herblock, because he’s never won that one either. He wrote, “Goodbye, Felicia.” Shame on Felicia for not rewarding his brilliance.

            He made it about himself. It’s not about him. And it’s not about me. It’s not about any one specific cartoonist. I totally get being disappointed when you don’t win. I’m disappointed every year by every freaking contest (usually). But, I’m not going to boycott a contest because they didn’t give me an award or a check. Nobody owes me an award. They don’t owe my colleague an award. Even the three finalists for this year’s Pulitzer aren’t owed an award, but they are owed an explanation. Since it’s about all of us, we’re all owed an explanation. As Ricky would say to Lucy: Pulitzers, “You got some ‘splaining to do.”

            I don’t think you should make it personal when you don’t win…but I do think it’s fair to be critical of who wins…or more to the point…what wins.

            If I were to boycott an award, it would be because it only rewards really bad stuff, like pro-Trump shit. Or the winner works for a disinformation outlet like Sputnik, or he’s Ben Garrison (this has not happened, but you never know). [Ben Garrison is a notoriously rampant right wing editoonist.] Another contest this year gave its first place to a cartoonist who was hired to replace a guy fired for drawing cartoons criticizing Trump. The replacement who won this contest draws cartoons about cancel culture. If award judges can’t recognize irony then they shouldn’t be judging political cartoons. Those would be good reasons to boycott.

            There has been outrage in the past over who won the Pulitzer Prize for editorial cartoons when the winners were still cartoonists. The comic strip Doonsebury won in the 1970s and the guys who draw traditional political cartoons were livid (before my time in the biz, but I read about it). About a decade later, Bloom County won and political cartoonists nearly stormed Columbia University like a bunch of MAGA terrorists attacking the Capitol. That was also before my time in the business, but some guys are still bitching about it.

            A few years ago, one cartoonist won the award and half his entry (they could include up to 20 cartoons at that time) were animations. Another cartoonist wrote a long column criticizing this decision saying the animations didn’t provide any commentary and were just jingles about politics. Another year, the entire winning entry consisted of animated political cartoons, though those were heavy in commentary (and quite brilliant). I actually don’t recall any complaining about that one but I’m sure someone somewhere was grumbling.

            In the 2000s, a conservative won his second Pulitzer and a lot of his colleagues were disappointed because his cartoons didn’t question power, didn’t comfort the afflicted, and didn’t call out the bad guys. No. They supported coverups in the Bush administration. One of the cartoons in the package was about Sheryl Crow doing her part for the environment by not using toilet paper. Maybe the Pulitzer judges really hated her cover of “First Cut is the Deepest.” I know I did.

            Another episode that triggered cartoonists was when the main committee rejected the three finalists and picked another cartoonist from the batch who didn’t make the original cut. One of his cartoons eloquently pointed out that Monica Lewinsky was “thick” and Gennifer Flowers was not as thick. Seriously.

            There have been times when the winning entry didn’t question authority, or all the cartoons were lazy clichés, or the cartoons were more gag and not actual editorializing. And, a lot of times cartoonists were upset over the winners because they just thought they just simply sucked. Usually, someone was upset because s/he didn’t win. But, nobody is owed an award.

 

 

WHAT’S MORE TROUBLING is now you can win a Pulitzer Prize for editorial cartooning without drawing an editorial cartoon. This is true and it’s happened.

            A few years ago, the Pulitzers gave the top prize for editorial cartooning to a graphic series in a publication. It was shared between the artist and the writer. This was some outstanding journalism but it was not an editorial cartoon. The writer has a Pulitzer for editorial cartooning and he doesn’t draw. Has the Pulitzer for best photo been given to someone who doesn’t take photos?

            A couple years ago, they gave the Pulitzer to Barry Blitt. Barry is a Facebook friend of mine and I don’t mean to disparage his accomplishment, but he’s heard this before. His artwork was for magazine covers. Though his artwork is excellent, they’re not editorial cartoons. The word is, the judges didn’t even pick him…but once again, the finalists were rejected by the larger committee and they went for the magazine guy.

            The Pulitzer people must have heard the outrage so they changed a few things. For this year’s contest, the eligibility for the prize for editorial cartooning read, “For editorial cartooning and other illustrated work.”

            What the hell is “other illustrated work?” It’s anything that was in a print or online news publication…almost any online news publication.

            This year, after I had labored for many hours putting my Pulitzer package together and had made my submission, the Pulitzer people contacted me and said, “Nope. You gotta take something out. It doesn’t qualify.”

            Here’s the thing, kids: This year, the number of cartoons that can be in a package was reduced from 20 to 15. Your typical political cartoonist will draw about 300 cartoons a year. I draw over 400. So, on most days, I’m not drawing a cartoon that will be considered for a contest. Most days, the cartoon I drew for that day will be rejected by myself for a contest. So, all the contest judges out there are seeing just a tiny itty bitty teensy fraction of my work to consider as the best of all cartoons of the year. The same goes for most of my colleagues.

            One of the reasons I draw so many cartoons is because I also draw for CNN once a week. This year, I included one of my CNN cartoons. I really liked it too. But, the Pulitzer people told me it didn’t qualify. They only told me why after I asked. They said it didn’t qualify because CNN is a broadcast outlet, not a print or digital one.

            I buy that explanation except…[my cartoon] was only published digitally. It was drawn for their weekly newsletter…which is digital. It was also published on my website…which is also digital. So, digital news outlets are OK unless they’re owned by a broadcast network? Aren’t there newspapers owned by cable networks? Doesn’t Cox own the Atlanta Journal-Constitution? Does that mean the AJC doesn’t qualify?

            I am grateful the Pulitzer people allowed me to replace that cartoon for another cartoon for them to later reject, but I still have an issue over this. Technically, based upon their description of “other illustrated work,” the USA Today weather map is more eligible for the Pulitzer Prize in editorial cartooning than my CNN editorial cartoon.

            Let’s say I don’t deserve a Pulitzer Prize. A lot of people do say that. But again, it’s not about me. But my profession deserves the Pulitzer. My profession deserves that respect. We are in a time when newspapers are firing their cartoonists and laying them off. A cartoonist was literally fired for drawing about Donald Trump. He took a stand that cost him a job he had for over 30 years. That doesn’t deserve a Pulitzer?

            The Pulitzer Prize just gave back-up to every editor who believes he doesn’t need a cartoon in his publication. The Pulitzer Prize just gave credibility to the argument that political cartoons are not journalism. Sure, there are bad cartoonists. There are cartoonists who are hacks. But I personally have a short list in my head of brilliant political cartoonists who deserve the recognition of a Pulitzer Prize.

            I don’t know if we have any Herblocks, Oliphants, or Conrads in our ranks today. And I believe there are more cartoonists drawing crap than there are cartoonists doing great work. But, I think the few cartoonists who are drawing great cartoons are creating some of the best cartoons in the history of political cartoons.

            We had a year of cartoons covering the covid pandemic, an administration covering it up and suggesting everyone drink bleach, a presidential election, and a fascist-wannabe president claiming he won when he lost. Surely, at least one cartoonist in the United States of America drew some cartoons on those subjects good enough for a Pulitzer Prize. The Pulitzers just disrespected my entire profession and skipped an opportunity to award its top prize to someone who’s long deserved it and hasn’t received it yet, like Rob Rogers, Pat Bagley, Kevin Kallaugher, Mike Thompson, Bill Bramhall, and one of this year’s finalists, Lalo Alcaraz.

            My cartoon is correct. I have the kind of humor that doesn’t win Pulitzer Prizes. The proof of that is, I don’t have a Pulitzer Prize. And, I’ll prove it again next year because this cartoon will be included in my Pulitzer Prize entry. I’m not going to include it because I actually believe it’s great or worthy of a Pulitzer Prize.

            The Pulitzer Prize just took a dump on my entire profession. I’m including this cartoon in my 2021 entry because I am forcing the Pulitzer Prize people to see it.

 

 

return to the top of the page

 

For More Rants & Raves -- Click Here.

 

And If You’re Not a $ubscriber/Associate—

 

 

SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

Just $3.95/quarter after $3.95 introductory month

NOTE: You can gain temporary access to this posting (and all the rest of this website) by paying the trial month fee of $3.95 (which is about what the New York Times used to charge for a single print-out).

$ubscriber/Associates: To Continue Reading, Please CLICK HERE

To find out more about Harv’s books, click here.

 

To find out about Harv's books, click here.


send e-mail to R.C. Harvey
Art of the Comic Book - Art of the Funnies - Accidental Ambassador Gordo - reviews - order form Harv's Hindsights - main page