Friday night. All my lovely nerdy normie lady friends were logging into our group chat, ready for funny, scary, co-op vidya game shenanigans.
“What are you doing, [ComicBookHarriet]?” they asked.
“I’m looking for CHONGS.”
Stunned confusion followed.
“It’s for a Funky Winkerbean thing.”
And then, well they still didn’t understand, but at least they understood the location of the field of nonsense that held the specific rabbit hole I was furiously scrambling down.
Crack commenter, Andrew, pointed out a couple days ago that Tom had a new blog post up. A blogpost specifically about the I Chong gimmick that ran through nearly all of Act I. The first one I found in my records goes all the way back in 1973.
The gag showed up regularly, year after year, lasting through till at least 1989, as I found in one of my mammoth Complete FW Tomes.
It was almost always Funky reading the book, in a series of locations, with panels reused again and again and again with maybe a little tweaking.
Most of the time Funky remains a passive reader, though not always.
The only time someone other than Funky picks up I Chong is when Crazy Harry gives it a try.
An explanation of I Chong had already featured in a 2016 blog post of Tom’s where he includes an excerpt from The Complete Funky Winkerbean Volume 2, complete with the same single panel 1929 Sidney Smith comic he lists on this week’s blog. (Except he misnames the cartoonist Sydney Smith.)
Around this time Funky began pondering things like why there were cloakrooms in elementary schools when no one ever wore cloaks and continued that line of thinking with a series of readings from the I-Chong, a second cousin to the I-Ching, a tome that blossomed in popularity again with the burgeoning hippie culture. I recently discovered that Sydney Smith, the creator of the Gumps, had also come up with a strip called Ching-Chow, which played with the premise in much the same manner, only fifty years earlier. This points up a couple of things: one, that no matter how successful a cartoonist may be, and this includes the almighty Charles Schulz, there’s always that gnawing sense of insecurity that leads him to try to create a second strip in case the first one fails (some cartoonists have even been known to create a third strip, but these sad cases have obviously lost some of the buttons on their raincoats), and, two, that there’s really not too much that’s new under the word balloons anymore.
Match to Flame 30, Oct 9, 2016
The only Act III reference I could find to I Chong came in November 2013. Two strips, at the very beginning of the month, and the very end of a week, about how Funky and Holly are dealing with Cory’s deployment to Afghanistan.
Or, as Tom Batiuk put it a few days ago:
When this strip ran late in 2022, Funky’s final year, I was in the process of looking back over my shoulder at things that had taken place in the early days of the feature. So when Funky finds a copy of the I-Chong in his attic, it brings back memories of reading it when he was a high school student.
The Annotated Funky – I Chong, March 20, 2024
Son of Stuck Funky 
What we get are bad puns that a fifth grader would find tedious passed off as ancient wisdom by a me too. In short, classic Batiuk.
Today’s Funky Crankerbean
Not even Colorado is safe from this fat dumb red-hat wearing bastard that calls himself Ed Crankshaft
Those “I Chong” strips read like Tom sought out the worst Bazooka Joe comics he could find, then made them dumber.
Thanks CBH for this retrospective. I always liked the I Chong bits, yeah most were corney, but I usually got a laugh out of them.
This was a time when the strip was still fun and had some silliness, before it turned all depressing and preachy. Or hyper focused on comic books.
TB’s “Comix Thoughts” entry adds:
In a footnote to this, some thirty years later, I discovered to my astonishment that Sidney Smith, the creator of The Gumps, had created a second comic strip (oh those insecure cartoonists) called Ching Chow back in the twenties, some fifty years before I showed and invented the trope all over again.
I actually happen to own a paperback collection of “Ching Chow” strips. They’re nothing like the ancient “Confucius say: [corny pun or Dad joke]” trope that TB reworked for FW. They are generally little tidbits of wisdom or maxims.
That ancient “Confucius Say: [joke]” trope he reworked was never part of Ching Chow.
He invented nothing, reinvented nothing. Even if he had invented it, it’s hardly worth bragging about.
And why does he call call Sidney Smith, a very successful and savvy cartoonist, “insecure”? Project much, Tom?
From Wikipedia:
Also from Wikipedia:
Smith sounds like a very smart businessman, getting paid basically just for the use of his name. This theory also shows how famous and successful he was, but I suppose no deceased comic strip artist is safe from the slings and arrows of Tom Batiuk.
Fun Fact:
Gus Edson succeeded Sidney Smith on *The Gumps,* and one of his assistants was Martin Landau.
I had a gym teacher who had a *Ching Chow* strip on his wall. Its message was:
“Experience and responsibility make conservatives of us all.”
Which may be why Robert Frost wrote:
“I never dared to be radical when young for fear it would make me conservative when old.”
Another notable thing about “The Gumps” was, of course, Smith’s 1929 storyline where he killed off a major character, the innocent young Mary Gold. Newspapers carrying the strip were flooded with angry phone calls, telegraphs, and letters, and there were reports of folks openly weeping while reading the “funnies” on buses and subways.
Funny how Batiuk doesn’t bring that up, isn’t it?
Why should Tom Batiuk, the first cartoonist to dare killing off a major character, deign to mention an also-ran who had done it 80 years before?
Time isn’t linear, as TimeMop will tell you. Smith was just piggybacking on Tom’s radical innovation, the shameless copycat.
But such is the fate of a brilliant pioneer like Tom Batiuk — to have all of your “firsts” imitated by wannabes from the distant past.
Time Mop strikes again!
A couple of days after the I Chong post, Tom had a “Cover Me” entry. He states, “As long as I’m still in way-back-when mode…”
Still? When are you out of it?
Then again, in some other respects, he is permanently out of it.
Hey, “One Big Happy” readers! Know that thing that DeTorie used to do? Have Ruthie or someone just say what is obviously from some random kids’ joke book from decades ago? Like 75 years ago?
I haven’t seen him do it in a while. But it would be a joke that was old when I was a little kid, and I’m from a generation old enough that we thought the height of Western Technology was Shrinky Dinks. The bathtub joke, about not getting a joke? Sure cracked them up when Gallagher and Sheen were in vaudeville! But it Tain’t funny, McGee!
Is there some track of when the Act I “in the last panel, the character looks like he’s gonna puke”? When did that turn into “Wry half-smirk”? Do you have to signify “THATS THE JOKE FOLKS” in a strip where literally everything is only funny because it’s the last panel? And for years they looked like they’d vomit, but now Pam smiles like a baby suffering mild gas discomfort?
Do I dislike Tom because he’s a self-overrated hack? No, it’s because of things like “no matter how successful a cartoonist may be, and this includes the almighty Charles Schulz, there’s always that gnawing sense of insecurity.” Fuck you, you pretentious, pompous, jealous, unbelievably insecure leech. Sparky could put out better strips than 50 years of yours by wiping on some toilet paper. No one reads The Gumps today, but it’s remembered by historians for its significance. How do you think history will remember you, Tom? (glances at ash heap)
To which Mr. Old-Timer says:
“Ey, that’s pretty funny, but that ain’t the way I heer’d it, Johnny!”
The P. in “Throckmorton P. Gildersleeve” stands for “Philharmonic.”
Thank you for the post, Harriet!
A few days ago it was written by Banana that most of what makes TB’s work have a surface level of competence is that they’re viewed in isolation. Today’s entries do more to support that notion – by themselves, these I Chong strips are standard inoffensive gag-a-day stuff. In today’s instance, it’s the blog posts with the baffling swipe at Schulz, the misspelling of Sidney Smith’s name, and such, which elevate it all to a level beyond mere blandness.
“the baffling swipe at Schulz”
What was Schulz’s whim to “try to create a second strip in case the first one fails”? Does the Silent Film Era Expert think Li’l Folks and Peanuts are different strips?
Yeah, Tom, we get that you made a 2nd strip, and a 3rd which bombed hard. Schulz only had one strip, so you must be THREE times as good as him! After all, you’ve lost more Pulitzers than him!
At this point, it’s almost a point of honor for a cartoonist to be insulted or backhandedly complimented by Batiuk.
Hal Foster — thief and plagiarist. Schulz and Smith — insecure and anxious.
Any others who’ve received this honor?
TB also slagged Chester Gould in a blog post about Sadie Summers where he suggests banishing Sadie to the “Dumb Character Fantasy Zone” with Moon Maid.
I’m sure there are others.
“Any others who’ve received this honor?”
Every artist who didn’t do a “FIRST ISSUE! ATOMIK KOMIX!” cover for free? Except Byrne, who may have needed work because of “I’m really creepy! I draw children that look like adult hobbits and have eyebrows that look like hobbit feet! Also, here’s some Rule 34 art I did for Sue Storm!”
Does he pay people for the Comix Kovers? With FW, he couldn’t find anyone dumb enough to accept what I assume he paid Ayers: The joy of working with Tom Batuik, and here’s car fare, get out of my beautiful Akron house, do NOT take one Skittle from the bowl, those are mine.
He certainly does pay people. Do you think an artist of the caliber of Neal Adams would do a “cover” just for the prestige and honor of working with an exalted talent such as Tom Batiuk, thus securing his own place in comics history?
There’s no such thing as “free” work from an in-demand artist, because every “free” job actually costs them money — the time they spend on it is stolen from paying work.
Batiuk’s swipe at Schulz was somewhat bizarre and unnecessary, but Schultz did have a short-lived second strip in the late 1950s, after Peanuts was already well-established (though not quite yet the pop-culture juggernaut which it became). Called It’s Only A Game, it was a sports-oriented gag-a-day strip without continuing characters. It lasted just over a year (Nov ’57-Jan ’59), and wasn’t particularly successful. Peanuts was really starting to take off at that point, so Schulz dropped it.
He also did a single-panel feature called Young Pillars for a Youth magazine, a religious publication, from 1956 to ’65. My understanding, however, is that this wasn’t as regular a gig, with cartoons frequently repeated. And I don’t think it was widely seen.
I remember the “I Chong” gag having more substance than these examples show. Act I was actually good about lampooning the useless, self-serving, feel-good student activism of the 1970s. I feel like a good I Chong joke at Roland’s expense should exist. Like that “Rappin Around” strip about the discarded ecology button, where the activism misses the point of their own activism.
But I don’t think that good I Chong strip actually exists. You can see from the examples here that there’s nothing more to the joke than “Confucius say funny thing!” Which isn’t far from the wordplay gags the strip did all the time anyway.
That surface level of competence disappears once you investigate it at all.
My favorite was, “Wise man say: ‘Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for Montoni’s pizza.'”
Clearly this is where Tony was writing his thoughts before he got that Twitter account. As well as marketing his pizza.
Well, this is too great not to share. Continuing on the topic of Ching Chow, apparently it was thought to be some sort of oracle of winning numbers or horses, and this contributed to its long popularity. Here’s a Comics Journal article about the phenomenon:
https://www.tcj.com/on-ching-chow-lucky-numbers-and-gambling/
Gee, do you think maybe TB hid some secret tips in FW strips? I think it was about breast cancer treatment regimens.
“Let’s see… the date today is the 4th, which is IV in Roman numerals, so the messages must be about IV medications. There’s a bicycle in the first panel, so he’s telling us to use cyclophosphamide.
Funky has crazy bug eyes like he’s on meth, so Tom must be recommending methotrexate. Plus… let’s see… Oh, there are flowers on the table! Flower is “flor” in Spanish. So that means fluorouracil. That’s it!
Nurse! Prepare an IV infusion of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil, STAT!”
Meanwhile, on Crankshaft, climate damage is coming for Batiuk’s SUV and he don’t like it.
Today’s Funky Crankerbean:
Angie: George, why do you hang out with the person who destroys your property on a daily basis?
Keesterman: I like Ralph more than I like Crankshaft.
Today’s Funky Crankerbean:
Ralph: I had a meeting with Dr. Hallet, and she said that I have terminal 7 lung cancer.
(some bearded dick with ears shows up)
Dick Facey: Did somebody say CANCER!?
(Dick Facey then sports a sinister grin)
Welp, he did it again. He just posted the same bizarre, confused commentary to his Instagram account. How could he possibly think this was from the last months of FW? There are a few clues that it ain’t:
— Shipping stuff to Cory
— Signed by just “Batiuk,” not “Batiuk/Ayers”
— The gloating in interviews and on his blog about his “rather elegant solution” with the Montoni’s sale and Summer’s Kampf and TimeMop’s nudging and Byrne’s HoverSkylers, etc — which actually happened at the end of 2022 — has he forgotten all of that completely?
Yikes.
Another thing — making a joke about a medical mistake is rather tone-deaf given the epoch-defining tragedy of Lisa’s death.