Banana Jr. 6000

To Everything, There Is A Season

I want to take off my snarker hat for a moment, and talk seriously about the future of Crankshaft.

We thought the past week would be yet another week of Skip Rawlings’ endless, pointless, onanistic interview with Batton Thomas. It turned out to be something much worse.

After what we saw this week – Tom Batiuk using the title character of Crankshaft as a tool to bash readers who want to see more of Crankshaft in the strip, and additionally as a strawman for Tom Batiuk’s tired “comic strips have to be funny” canard – there is one inescapable conclusion:

It’s time for Ed Crankshaft to die.

And I don’t mean that maliciously. I mean it in the way that a long-suffering family pet, who can’t be cured or even helped, needs to die. It’s a gut-wrenching decision to have a pet put down, but sometimes it’s the merciful thing to do.

Because the way Ed Crankshaft was used this week is appalling. How much do you have to hate your own creation, and all of its followers, to use that creation to mock their desire for more of it? I haven’t seen a production insult its audience this much since 1968.

Crosses The Line Twice takes Refuge In Audacity.

And this isn’t the first time Batiuk has acted like this. He killed off John Darling so the syndicate could no longer use the character (even though no one would ever want to). He’s bitter about the name Funky Winkerbean, because he thinks it held the strip back; the character Funky Winkerbean got pushed into the background. When Funky did appear, his arcs tended to center on his misfortunes: alcoholism, obesity, ego, incompetence, bad luck. And now Batiuk is bitter that readers want to see Crankshaft in Crankshaft, so he used the character to mock them. Notice a pattern?

The worst part of it is: these are his genuine fans. “Where’s Crankshaft?” isn’t something this blog thought up. It’s a common sentiment in online comment areas, from people who presumably enjoy the comic strip as Batiuk intended. They prefer Ed’s antics to the self-indulgent meandering slop Batiuk has been filling it with since Funky Winkerbean ended.

These are the people Batiuk should be trying to please. Or at least, listen to. “Where’s Crankshaft?” is essentially positive feedback. It affirms his decision all those years ago to give Crankshaft his own world. People seem to enjoy the cranky old bus driver and his antics.

Personally, I have no strong feelings about Ed Crankshaft. I don’t like or dislike him more than any other character. He’s a selfish, egotistical, malicious, unemployable jackass, but so are most male characters in the Funkyverse. But I do think Crankshaft deserves some dignity. He does not deserve to be used as a punching bag by an arrogant creator trying to make a point.

There are several reasons why the death of Ed Crankshaft would be beneficial to Crankshaft as a whole:

It’s way, way overdue. Ed Crankshaft is at least 106 years old. I base that on the fact that he played for the 1940 Toledo Mud Hens, and the youngest member of that team was born in February 1919. It’s also consistent with other mileposts of his life. He fought in World War II. He was an advocate for black baseball players in the early days of integration, which would have been the late 1940s. He played professional baseball in Cuba, which ended halfway through the 1960 season. His daughter Pam was a student at Kent State in 1970, making her birth year about 1950, at which time Ed was in his early 30s.

I know there are some individual strips that contradict that chronology. Like when Crankshaft claimed to admire Vic Power and Rocky Colavito growing up. But I think those were all caused by Timemop. If Tom Batiuk can use a time-traveling janitor to fix all his continuity errors, I can use a time-traveling janitor to break them again. Nudge!

If Batiuk truly believes his comic strips are the only ones where characters age realistically, it’s time to let nature take its course.

It would attract attention to the strip. Tom Batiuk loves media attention, and he loves killing off his own characters to get it. This would be another opportunity to do that. Alert the New York Times.

It would require no new writing or artwork. We already know Ed’s future, because it’s been shown in the strip. During the “Funky Winkerbean is ten years in the future from Crankshaft” era (2007-2022), Ed was depicted in FW as a decrepit husk.

We also know where he’s going to die: at a baseball game. So no new story needs to be written. Existing art can be repurposed or recreated. Which is a common practice in Batiuk’s work nowadays.

It would be a nice Continuity Nod. The Funkyverse loves revisiting its own stories, and this would do that.

It would be a satisfying end. It would bid farewell to the character in a way that lets readers and other characters say their goodbyes to the cranky old bus driver. In other words, it would be the opposite of what happened in Star Trek: Generations.

It would signal the strip’s change in direction. Have you ever seen (or been part of) a couple that really needs to break up, but they won’t pull the trigger on it? They just hang around together, hoping things will get better? Ed Crankshaft’s continued presence in Crankshaft feels like that.

Batiuk clearly wants to turn the strip into Funky Winkerbean Act IV, full of comic books and writing awards and Dinkle and Montoni’s and the Winnipeg Blue Bombers and interviews of himself and cheap award-baiting. And Ed Crankshaft is in the way of all that.

If I’m right that Batiuk is bitter about being pressured to include Ed in the proceedings, the best thing he could do for his readers and himself is retire the character permanently. It would end the “Where’s Crankshaft” questions, because readers would know he isn’t coming back. (Though death can be a dubious thing in the Funkyverse.)

It would let Tom Batiuk do what he claims he wants to do. Batiuk constantly complains about having to be a gag-a-day writer. If Ed Crankshaft isn’t around anymore, there’s a lot less need for gag strips in Crankshaft. It removes a writing crutch Batiuk has leaned on for far too long. And it calls his bluff. You want to write serious drama, not gags? Fine. Get rid of the main character you have to write gags for.

Of course, he’d also need to get rid of Dinkle. But that would only take one panel:

And if Tom Batiuk doesn’t want to kill off Crankshaft or Dinkle, I’ve got another character he can get rid of:

Doppelgängerstadt

Here’s a writing tip: Don’t make jokes that draw attention to your worst tendencies as a writer.

Today’s joke in Crankshaft was that the insufferable Batton Thomas called himself the “doppelgänger” of the slightly less insufferable Jeff Murdoch. Complete with umlaut. One of those worst tendencies is how Tom Batiuk loves to get little details like this right, while ignoring the basic history of his own world and characters.

But that’s not the worst tendency I’m here to talk about today. The below images are of nine different women from the Funkyverse:

And to show that they all don’t just look alike, here are some hints about the group:

Five of them have made some kind of audio-visual product. (Obviously, #2 is one of those.)
Four of them are in long-term relationships with comic book-addicted dorks.
Three of them have only been seen as high school students.
Two are members of the original high school class of Funky Winkerbean.
Two of them are identical twins, who somehow manage to look different despite being indiscernible.
The number of characters who also appeared in both Funky Winkerbean and Crankshaft is… well, your guess is as good as mine.
Amazingly, only one of them has written a book. And that book was only mentioned once.

Post your guesses in the comments. I’ll give everyone a day or two before I reveal the answer. Have fun!

(UPDATE: CSRoberto aced this quiz in the very first post. Alternate quiz: tell me who these women are, but wrong answers only, a la Y. Knott and The Drake Of Life’s posts. Have fun!)

Meanness, Inaction

Most of us call this “Ed Under The Bed” arc, but PJ202718NBCA came up with a much better name for it.

I have often said that the Funkyverse is very meanspirited, in ways that are hard to quantify. Ed spending two of the last three weeks under his bed is a perfect example of that. While the story appears benign on the surface, it forces us to make a lot of discomforting assumptions about the world these people inhabit.

In art, negative space is the empty space around to the subject of an image. Negative space can be used to give the image balance, or to convey additional meaning. Especially in corporate logos. It also makes a good metaphor for this tendency of the Funkyverse.

I call it Emotional Negative Space: the unpleasant things Tom Batiuk’s writing forces the reader to assume, in order for a scene to make any sense.

The Funkyverse is inoffensive on the surface. Bland characters smirk at each other about the author’s many boring hobbies. But if we look at the negative space around the story – the assumptions that it requires – we can see how nasty it really is. And this is a particularly nasty arc.

A senior citizen suddenly hiding under their bed is a concerning sign. They may be anxious, afraid (perhaps of something that doesn’t exist), trying to regain control of their surroundings, or otherwise coping with dementia. Or it could be something more straightforward, like they’ve begun soiling themselves and are hiding their damaged clothes. Or they’re just ashamed of themselves. Many posters have mentioned seeing their loved ones decline, and lose their independence, as they aged. It’s not a fun thing to see.

In last Monday’s strip, Ed is hiding under the bed and refusing to go to work. We just saw Ed come back from an international trip, so he has no problems with mobility, unless they just started. Ed is also a pretty fearless guy. So this is very out of character.

On Tuesday, Pam is telling Ed (who is her father) that he’s “got to come out from under the bed!” Which is even more out of character. She’s got an angry look on her face, and her arms crossed in a demanding pose she never uses any other time. Especially not when Ed is about to do another $25,000 worth of property damage. Or when Jeff brought her a rock after almost getting himself killed in Bronson Canyon.

In good writing, someone behaving out of character can suggest that this a serious moment. Like when Calvin was heartbroken about the baby raccoon dying, or when the bookish Marcie slugged that sexist prick Thibault. But that’s not the kind of writing we get in this feature. We know the author better than that. This is a week of gag strips! By a man who thinks writing gag strips is beneath him.

By giving one of the characters cancer, (Tom Batiuk) was announcing that comic strips, like comic books, need not be restricted to gag-a-day formats and juvenile subjects. This was even more apparent when the same character’s cancer returned with a vengeance in 2007.

Okay, time to be serious again. Let’s consider the emotional negative space of this moment. Ed is being told he must go to work instead of hiding under the bed. I have just one question:

Why?

Seriously, why does Ed have to go to work? Why can’t he just stay home, or quit his job if he wants to? In a competently written feature, the reason might be “we need the money.” But motivations in the Funkyverse are never as straightforward or realistic as that.

Please note that I’m not being snarky here. I have said nothing about Crankshaft being a jerk who’s intentionally bad at his job; his addiction to online shopping; his propensity for wrecking other people’s stuff; or the male characters’ tendency to be dominated by women in mommy roles. I am trying to engage the feature on its own terms. I’m trying to understand why this scene exists in a “quarter inch from reality” world. It is cruel. It is abusive. It offers no justification for itself. And it is Dude, Not Funny.

I did mention Crankshaft’s age, because it’s relevant to the question of why he needs to go to work. However you want to carbon-date Ed’s life, he is at least three decades into his retirement years. Because his daughter Pam is at least one decade into hers! She and Jeff were traditional-age college students during the 1970 Kent State shootings. Do the math.

And don’t tell me “Timemop.” Timemop has no power here. Ordinary people in realistic worlds can’t live, work, spend unlimited money, get book contracts, and remain absurdly active into their 90s without supernatural involvement becoming obvious. Does anyone remember the movie Cocoon?

Ed seems to be having some kind of panic attack. But nobody ever acknowledges this, or expresses a drop of concern for him. They don’t consider that Ed may be getting too old for day-to-day work. Or that his concerns might be valid. We saw the school children drive an implied Hell’s Angel into quitting during the “bus driver shortage” arc, so he may have good reason to fear them. Which is another justification this story could have used, but didn’t: the community needs him to fill his role during a shortage of qualified bus drivers.

Ed is shown zero compassion, and is browbeaten off-camera into going back to work. And we’re never told why. Did he just cave? If so, to what? To the spineless Pam? Seriously? We don’t know what convinced him to go back to work, or what really drove him under the bed in the first place. He mentions a couple things, but they’re just cheap jokes.

Batiuk is never clear about how his audience is supposed to react to things like this. When Calvin and Marcie broke character, it was serious business, and the tone of the stories reflected that. Batiuk’s tone is all over the place, so we can’t make the inferences we need to.

We have to provide the subtext ourselves, because Batiuk won’t. And the only logical subtext is that Ed’s family is ignoring his distress, and what appears to be some troubling behavior.

It’s The Thought That Counts

Have you ever gotten a self-serving holiday or birthday gift? Like, a starter package for a pyramid scheme, from a pushy friend who’s been trying to recruit you for months? Or an accessory for a device you don’t have, from someone who has it, and wants you to get interested in it? Or a donation in your name, to a cause they support but you don’t?

That’s exactly what this arc feels like.

First, let’s keep in mind how bonkers this story already is. The plot mechanism is “Pam damaged Jeff’s Winnipeg Blue Bombers shirt,” which, again, is a plot borrowed from media for pre-schoolers. Replacing it might have cost $50 total, including international shipping. Instead, Pam took the grandiose step of buying two tickets to a Blue Bombers football game, without even asking anyone if they wanted to go a game.

A game in Winnipeg. Which is almost 1000 air miles away from Cleveland. Toronto is only 300 miles from Cleveland by car, would have been a much better tourism destination, and every CFL team plays a game there every season.

Pam’s “gift” of a $50 football ticket obligated its recipients to spend well over $1,000 each. The flight from Cleveland to Winnipeg starts at $650. Plus taxes, fees, hotel, meals, ground transportation, and border crossing costs. Updating passports, if you need to do this, is also expensive and time-consuming.

So who paid all these add-on expenses? And why?

Jeff paid the trip expenses, because he’s the only one with a real job. This would make basic sense. Crankshaft has a job, but I doubt it pays much. And it obligates Jeff to spend money he may not wish to or be able to.
Crankshaft paid for the trip expenses, because somehow he is independently wealthy. This would explain a lot. I’ve long wondered how Ed is able to buy gobs of stupid crap online, while the family shrugs off the massive property damage he causes. There are real-life stories of janitors and teachers who built impressive savings accounts over their long lives. Crankshaft doesn’t seem the frugal type, but time is on his side. A penny saved in 1940 (when he was already an adult) would be worth $3.17 in 2024 according to online inflation calculators.
Crankshaft paid for the trip expenses, because he’s the grownup. This would be consistent with how parent-child relationships work in the Funkyverse. Children are treated as subservient wards even when they’re in their 70s. Witness the Funky Winkerbean storyline where Holly’s mother bullies her into doing a cheerleading show where she gets seriously injured, and has to be treated a time when the family is doing home renovations, and Montoni’s is failing. Nobody ever says a word about this.
Pam also paid for the trip expenses, as part of the gift. This would fit Batiuk’s overarching theme of a ~~mother~~ wife doing having to pay penance for destroying the ~~child~~ husband’s special fandom object. But how does Pam have this kind of spare money lying around?
Pam paid the trip expenses, to force Jeff and Ed to get along better. This theory would address a long-ignored problem in the Funkyverse: Jeff and Ed should hate each other. They’re not blood relatives; they’re in-laws.

Ed’s shenanigans – which includes water damage to Jeff’s precious comic books – have done infinitely more damage to Jeff than one ruined t-shirt. Jeff is long overdue to give Ed a The Reason You Suck Speech that would push the one from Family Guy into second place.

The joke is that Quagmire’s many criticisms of Brian are all 100% canonical.

Ed wouldn’t like Jeff either, because Ed is needy of attention, and he would see his child’s spouse as a competitor for it. Fortunately, the Funkyverse is very asexual, sparing us from a Wilbur and Dawn Weston situation.

But let’s lighten up. These two disparate, unfriendly men traveling together for a common purpose should be rife with comedic possibilities. Planes Trains and Automobiles, the National Lampoon’s Vacation movies, the original Toy Story, and family movies like Step-Brothers, mined gold from such a premise. But unfortunately, the Funkyverse is also very conflict-averse.

Instead, we’ve gotten one week on the mechanisms of appeasing a toddler, and a week on the banalities of air travel. At least Jeff’s puke-inducing Inner Child hasn’t shown up yet. But he still might.

The last possible explanation:

Pam wants to get both Jeff and Ed out of her life for a few days. As much as Jeff should be a tightly wound ball of hatred, Pam should be far, far worse. She’s forced to constantly indulge two idiot manchildren and their consumptive, destructive ways. Any woman would have left both of them decades ago.

This could be a fun twist. It’d be nice to see the story cut to Pam enjoying a day of peace and quiet in the house, wearing a self-satisfied smirk that would be justified for once. But Pam is a woman, and the Funkyverse is very disinterested in women.

But why else would she buy Ed a ticket, when he wasn’t the aggrieved party?

Growing Up Is Not So Tough, Except When I’ve Had Enough

Speaking of Canadian things:

In the last thread, poster csroberto compared Jeff’s behavior last week to that of widely-detested PBS Kids brat Caillou (pronounced KY-yoo). In fact, the Winnipeg Blue Bombers arc so far has been a remake of a story in Caillou. The story is called “Caillou’s Teddy Shirt”, and you can watch the entire 3-minute scene here:

One day, Caillou is dismayed to notice that his younger sister Rosie is wearing “his very favorite shirt,” though the importance of this shirt was never depicted previously. He cries, throws a tantrum, screams for mommy, and says “Rosie is wearing my teddy shirt!” Mommy explains that it’s too small for him to wear anymore, and gives it to Rosie as a hand-me-down. But Caillou doesn’t care, saying “it’s not too small for me! It’s mine!” and petulantly stomps off. Mommy’s reaction is to immediately pull the shirt off Rosie, saying “I need this shirt.” Rosie is understandably upset, but is quickly calmed when Mommy promises to put on her usual shirt.

Caillou puts the shirt on, and it’s much too small now, but Caillou doesn’t care. He tries taping the shirt in place, but that doesn’t work. Mommy brings a family photo album to show Caillou he was wearing the shirt at a much younger age. Then Mommy actually apologizes to Caillou for not asking his permission first, and offers to put it “in a special place to keep it forever.” Caillou gets the idea to put the shirt on the teddy bear.

Which doesn’t solve any of the actual problems. Caillou’s misbehavior was not corrected, Rosie still needs a new shirt, and Mommy has now poisoned the well for hand-me-downs for the rest of the children’s lives.

Last Monday, Jeff was dismayed to notice that he couldn’t find “his Winnipeg Blue Bombers game t-shirt”, though the importance of this shirt was never depicted previously. He doesn’t cry, throw a tantrum, scream for mommy, or petulantly stomp off, because Tom Batiuk would never be that direct. Everything must be implied. So look at Jeff’s face all of last week:

That is not the face of a man who can’t wear the shirt he wants to for a televised football game. That is the face of a man who lost all his documents five minutes before his tax evasion trial. The emotion is way too intense for the stakes.

Note also that none of these pictures are re-used. The emotion being expressed here is so important to Tom Batiuk that every single drawing of it had to be unique. Unlike Batton Thomas’ smug face, which we saw three times in 12 days, and have seen at least three more times since then:

The Crankshaft story then plays out differently than the Caillou story, but it’s still an exercise in appeasing bratty behavior that should have been corrected instead. And even the supremely spoiled Caillou wasn’t gifted a vacation as a replacement for an inexpensive shirt.

Making matters even worse, the Caillou story didn’t take place in front of another adult. Ed seems to be enabling the whole situation, saying “something is rotten in the state of Delaware” about Pam’s shiftiness. He also gloated when he received the reward, even though he wasn’t a party to the proceedings.

There’s also a little bit of a revenge fantasy about it all. It’s well-known that Tom Batiuk has never forgiven his mother for attempting to take away his comic books. This story plays out like a child’s revenge fantasy against a parent who has offended them in some way. And Pam is Jeff’s wife, not his mommy. It’s a little sick, honestly.

There is also question of whether tickets to a football game 1,000 air miles away with your father-in-law is even a good gift. But we’ll explore that another day.